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.
Filtered versions of this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion include:
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:, Education Program:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for 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
XFD backlog | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mar | Apr | May | Jun | TOTAL | |
CfD | 2 | 10 | 60 | 64 | 136 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
MfD | 0 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 12 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
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 June 26, 2019
- 2.2 June 25, 2019
- 2.2.1 Portal:Robotics
- 2.2.2 Portal:Wisconsin
- 2.2.3 Portal:Ancient warfare
- 2.2.4 Portal:Progressive rock
- 2.2.5 Portal:Heavy metal
- 2.2.6 Portal:Colorado
- 2.2.7 Portal:New Mexico
- 2.2.8 Portal:Wyoming
- 2.2.9 User:Lai91
- 2.2.10 Portal:Python (programming language)
- 2.2.11 Portal:Android (operating system)
- 2.2.12 Portal:United States Air Force
- 2.2.13 Portal:United States Navy
- 2.2.14 Portal:Soccer in the United States
- 2.2.15 Portal:Vermont
- 2.3 June 24, 2019
- 2.4 June 23, 2019
- 2.5 June 22, 2019
- 2.6 June 21, 2019
- 2.7 June 20, 2019
- 2.8 June 19, 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.
June 26, 2019
Wikipedia:Pictures from SIDI-Sportmanagement
- Wikipedia:Pictures from SIDI-Sportmanagement ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer necessary to retain due to outdated collaboration information. Not even necessary to retain with {{Historical}}. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - not necessary to maintain licensing information (however accurate it may or may not be) for images that were deleted fourteen years ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a pretty useless page with what amounts to (now) nonsense. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Pictures from Albert Hofmann Foundation
- Wikipedia:Pictures from Albert Hofmann Foundation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer valid, and no clear reason to retain. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Philippines copyright law
- Wikipedia:Philippines copyright law ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This page was formerly a talk page at Template talk:PhilippinesGov, and before that, Template talk:PD-PhilippinesGov. However, this move was performed, moving it into the "Wikipedia:" namespace for some reason. Unless any info on this page can be merged somewhere, probably best to delete this as a talk page that should have been deleted per WP:G8 years ago. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:September 11 attacks
- Portal:September 11 attacks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Selected article section consists of seven 2008 content forks that have not been updated (with one exception, in 2011). Does not meet WP:POG.
Plagiarized, unless someone can substantially explain why forks would not require attribution per WP:COPYWITHIN. The closing admin agreed with my interpretation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Military of the United States. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Proper attribution would address the copyleft violation, but the whole concept of partially copied portal subpages is an issue. One common method for the design of portals, in use at least since 2005, has involved sometimes large numbers of subpages of the portal, one for each selected article and picture, and sometimes for news items and Do You Know (DYK) items. Often the subpages for selected articles consist of a copy of the original article, or a copy of the first part of the original article. The subpages for In The News (ITN) and DYK items may also be copies of the lead paragraph or a portion of the article page. This approach to design of portals is sufficiently commonly used that it can be considered standard. However, it is an honorable experiment that has failed, and should be abandoned. In numerous cases, it has been found that portals have displayed outdated and incorrect information to the reader. These discrepancies have been especially common with, but not limited to, political leadership. These discrepancies are a serious problem because they cannot be readily corrected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, meaning that any reasonably computer-literate person can edit an article; but editing the displayed information in a portal requires specialized technical knowledge of how portals are implemented, which is presumably why errors persist, sometimes for years. An editor who has Twinkle installed can tag articles in need of editing if they do not have the time or knowledge to fix them; but tagging via Twinkle is not available for portals. Experience has shown that the use of portal subpages that copy portions of articles results in outdated information being displayed, sometimes for years, because it is difficult to correct. This design technique, partial article copies, has been an honorable experiment over the course of more than a decade, but the experiment should be assessed to have been a failure. It has also been noted that copying portions of articles to portal subpages without attribution is a violation of the CC-BY-SA copyleft and is not permitted. Some other design approach for portals should be used in the future.
- The portal has 23 daily pageviews, as opposed to the article September 11 attacks, which has 13992 daily pageviews.
- The portal should be deleted, without prejudice to a new portal with a design that does not rely on partially copied subpages. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
June 25, 2019
Portal:Robotics
- Portal:Robotics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Terribly out of date. Notably:
- The New Horizons selection (created in 2007; never updated) says nothing about the spacecraft visiting Pluto.
- The Mars Science Laboratory entry (created in 2007; never updated) says nothing about Curiosity leaving Earth, much less about landing on Mars.
Merely updating this portal would not be enough as the content will fall out of date faster than our most active portals are updated. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - One common method for the design of portals, in use at least since 2005, has involved sometimes large numbers of subpages of the portal, one for each selected article and picture, and sometimes for news items and Do You Know (DYK) items. Often the subpages for selected articles consist of a copy of the original article, or a copy of the first part of the original article. The subpages for In The News (ITN) and DYK items may also be copies of the lead paragraph or a portion of the article page. This approach to design of portals is sufficiently commonly used that it can be considered standard. However, it is an honorable experiment that has failed, and should be abandoned. In numerous cases, it has been found that portals have displayed outdated and incorrect information to the reader. These discrepancies have been especially common with, but not limited to, political leadership. These discrepancies are a serious problem because they cannot be readily corrected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, meaning that any reasonably computer-literate person can edit an article; but editing the displayed information in a portal requires specialized technical knowledge of how portals are implemented, which is presumably why errors persist, sometimes for years. An editor who has Twinkle installed can tag articles in need of editing if they do not have the time or knowledge to fix them; but tagging via Twinkle is not available for portals. Experience has shown that the use of portal subpages that copy portions of articles results in outdated information being displayed, sometimes for years, because it is difficult to correct. This design technique, partial article copies, has been an honorable experiment over the course of more than a decade, but the experiment should be assessed to have been a failure. Some other design approach for portals should be used in the future.
- This portal has not been substantively updated since 2010. It has an average of 89 daily pageviews, which is better than most portals (as opposed to 1689 daily pageviews for robotics), but the pageviews are pageviews of outdated information that cannot be readily brought up to date. It should be deleted, without prejudice to a replacement by a portal with a design that does not use partial page copies. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Wisconsin
- Portal:Wisconsin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Long-abandoned mini-portal.
The news section tells us the exciting news that that "Obama and Romney enter final stretch in campaign for US Presidency". Hold the front page!
The DYK pages (see Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Wisconsin) are all 551 weeks old. i.e. they are unchanged since December 2008. . Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this 11-year-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.
There are 10 selected biogs and 3 selected articles, which is a thin set. The latest addition is Portal:Wisconsin/Selected biography/10, added in March 2009. That's a set of ten-year-old content forks.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers for a whole decade, and Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 13 viewers per day. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Abandoned, indeed. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Ancient warfare
- Portal:Ancient warfare ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Eight selected articles (last substantial update in 2008). Four featured pics (pic #2 of 5 has been deleted from Commons.) Does not meet WP:POG. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - The subject matter has not changed as much in ten years as robotics. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - The portal has only 6 average daily pageviews, as opposed to 226 for the article ancient warfare. As the nominator notes, it has had no significant update since 2008.
- One common method for the design of portals, in use at least since 2005, has involved sometimes large numbers of subpages of the portal, one for each selected article and picture, and sometimes for news items and Do You Know (DYK) items. Often the subpages for selected articles consist of a copy of the original article, or a copy of the first part of the original article. The subpages for In The News (ITN) and DYK items may also be copies of the lead paragraph or a portion of the article page. This approach to design of portals is sufficiently commonly used that it can be considered standard. However, it is an honorable experiment that has failed, and should be abandoned. In numerous cases, it has been found that portals have displayed outdated and incorrect information to the reader. These discrepancies have been especially common with, but not limited to, political leadership. These discrepancies are a serious problem because they cannot be readily corrected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, meaning that any reasonably computer-literate person can edit an article; but editing the displayed information in a portal requires specialized technical knowledge of how portals are implemented, which is presumably why errors persist, sometimes for years. An editor who has Twinkle installed can tag articles in need of editing if they do not have the time or knowledge to fix them; but tagging via Twinkle is not available for portals. Experience has shown that the use of portal subpages that copy portions of articles results in outdated information being displayed, sometimes for years, because it is difficult to correct. This design technique, partial article copies, has been an honorable experiment over the course of more than a decade, but the experiment should be assessed to have been a failure. Some other design approach for portals should be used in the future.
- Although the subject matter has changed less in the past ten years than robotics, it should be kept current, because academic and popular accounts of the subject continue to be published, and depictions of ancient warfare, both historical and fictional, are evolving and of considerable popular interest.
- The portal should just be deleted. If someone wants to propose a new portal on the subject with a design that does not use partial article copies, they know where Deletion Review is. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Progressive rock
- Portal:Progressive rock ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned portal. Redundant with Portal:Music and Portal:Rock music. Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Section | Contents | Last add of content |
---|---|---|
Introduction | From Portal:Progressive rock/Intro | 2007 |
Selected article | only one (Queen (band)) | 2008 |
Selected picture | only one | 2007 |
Selected album | only one | 2008 |
- Delete Portal has had time to mature. It hasn't. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This portal is not so much abandoned as unbuilt.
- WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers, and the viewers have also not been drawn in: in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 10 pageviews per day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - As per analysis by nominator and by BHG. Interested readers can and do read the article Progressive rock which has 1630 daily average pageviews, as opposed to 10 for the portal. The portal is stillborn with only one selected article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Heavy metal
- Portal:Heavy metal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned portal. Redundant with Portal:Music and Portal:Rock music. Strong bias of only one band. Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Section | Contents | Last add of content |
---|---|---|
Introduction | Transclude from Heavy metal music | |
Selected article | 10 articles (5 already listed in the article Heavy metal music)(8 related to Slayer band) | 2007 |
Selected picture | 10 pictures | 2007 |
Did you know | 6 DYK | 2013 |
Wikinews | 6 news | 2016 |
Topic | From Template:Heavy metal music | |
Categories | Manual entrance | 2010 |
- Delete Has had time to mature, which hasn't happened. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I took a course in Advanced Inorganic Chemistry in my senior year of college, and it was mostly about heavy metals. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Yet another abandoned mini-portal. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers, so it fails the test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is broad enough. --Cambalachero (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Reply A theoretical argument could be made that this sub-genre of rock music is a broad topic. I disagree with that theoretical argument, but we don't need to rely on theory because we have empirical evidence that in practice, this portal does not pass that test: it has not attracted maintainers, and it has not attracted readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's not a valid argument. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement). I also noted that the cited line is required by WP:POG, but when I check the link I find that "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion". Cambalachero (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- That quote is from WP:ATA, which is an essay. It is not policy or a guideline. And the essay is all about articles. This is not an article; it is a portal, which is a device to assist navigation and/or to showcase articles. Like other non-content pagetypes such as categories and templates, the deletion criteria for articles don't apply here.
- And the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Portal/Guidelines#Pageviews shows overwhelming support for keeping this part of the guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - If the topic is broad enough, how come no one is working on it? Philosophers make a distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, between knowledge that is available in advance and knowledge that must be based on observation. The advocates of portals frequently say that a particular topic is a broad subject area, and so the subject should have a portal. It is possible to decide a priori that particular types of subject areas, such as countries, or big cities, are broad subject areas. However, that is an incomplete quotation of the portal guidelines, and, because of its incompleteness, is misleading. The portal guidelines say that "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." It is not possible to decide a priori that a subject area will attract readers and portal maintainers. That must be observed, and assessed a posteriori. We have seen a posteriori that there is no portal maintainer.
- The page has 19 daily pageviews, as opposed to 2472 daily pageviews for the article Heavy metal music.
- The guideline in question has been in effect since 2005, and has recently been tagged as "disputed or under discussion" by portal advocates because they don't like having it used against their portals, which they call weaponization of the guideline. That is, they want to move the goal net. They liked the abstract concept of a "broad subject area" until the idea of assessing breadth a posteriori was proposed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Are you seriously asking then to enforce a guideline that you know is under dispute? Cambalachero (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Portal/Guidelines#Pageviews shows overwhelming support for keeping this part of the guideline. Are you seriously objecting to upholding a part of guideline which has overwhelming support? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support from less than 10 people is not "overwhelming", specially when we consider that the supporters of the wording were pinged but those who opposed it were not. Cambalachero (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- I pinged those who had participated in recent deletion discussions, regardless of their views.
- The principle of that portals need to attract decent pageviews has been part of the guidelines for many years, and it has been upheld at hundreds of recent MFDs. The fact that one editor chose to challenge the guideline and got only a small minority of support for that view does not invalidate the guideline. If and when there is an RFC consensus to overturn the guideline in whole or in part, then we can think again ... but until then, it stands.
- Anyway, enough of the wikilawyering. Back to substance.
- @Cambalachero, how on earth do you think that it helps our readers to lure them to a portal which was abandoned a decade ago as a draft? All it has is a tiny set of massively-outdated content forks, and that's a waste of readers's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Either the guideline is still in effect although it is disputed, or it is suspended due to the dispute, or it has some intermediate status. If it is still in effect until the dispute is resolved, then breadth of subject area should be tested by whether it is attracting readers and portal maintainers. If the guideline is suspended due to the dispute, then the statement that the area is broad enough is also irrelevant. If it has some intermediate status, then we should clarify what that status is rather than using that as a handwave to dispose of this MFD.
- Portal advocates were fine with the concept of “broad subject area” as a handwave, until portal critics began using the techniques of computer scientists and analytic philosophers with regard to the guideline. Then the portal advocates slapped the “disputed” tag on the guideline to use that instead as their handwave. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support from less than 10 people is not "overwhelming", specially when we consider that the supporters of the wording were pinged but those who opposed it were not. Cambalachero (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Portal/Guidelines#Pageviews shows overwhelming support for keeping this part of the guideline. Are you seriously objecting to upholding a part of guideline which has overwhelming support? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Are you seriously asking then to enforce a guideline that you know is under dispute? Cambalachero (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Colorado
- Portal:Colorado ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned micro-portal. Only 2 selected articles and 2 selected biogs. No new content added since 2008.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers for over a decade, and it also has almost no readers: in Jan–Feb 2019, it got only 24 pageviews per day, compared with 3,625 views per day for the head article Colorado. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Has had time to mature, which hasn't happened. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Portals are not wine or cheese and do not improve with age, but inferior wine does not improve with age either.
- Oh. Wait a minute. Colorado's best known agricultural product isn't wine or cheese, but beef. Beef has a limited maturation schedule also. It only improves for about a year while it is on the hoof, and then is only dry-aged for weeks, and then has a shelf life of about a week after it is cut and packaged. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This is an unmaintained and little-viewed portal on a state of the United States. The following is a listing of the least-viewed state portals:
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Comments | Ratio | Percent | Articles |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
North Dakota | 8 | 1869 | Originator inactive since 2011. Not mained since 2007. | 233.63 | 0.43% | 12 |
New Hampshire | 8 | 2394 | No maintenance since 2008. Two articles. Two biographies. | 299.25 | 0.33% | 4 |
South Dakota | 8 | 1726 | No maintenance since 2010. | 215.75 | 0.46% | 6 |
Montana | 9 | 3786 | Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance in 2008. | 420.67 | 0.24% | 12 |
Idaho | 9 | 2377 | Originator inactive since 2011. Two biographies. Two articles. Last maintained in 2008. | 264.11 | 0.38% | 4 |
Maine | 10 | 2999 | 299.90 | 0.33% | ||
West Virginia | 10 | 2644 | Originator inactive since 2011. No maintenance since 2011. | 264.40 | 0.38% | |
Vermont | 10 | 2081 | 5 articles and 3 bios, last updated in 2008. Last tweaked in 2016. | 208.10 | 0.48% | 8 |
Nebraska | 10 | 2929 | Originator inactive since 2012. No maintenance since 2010. | 292.90 | 0.34% | 2 |
Wyoming | 11 | 3713 | Editor edits sporadically. News is obsolete. 4 articles and 1 bio, last updated in 2008. | 337.55 | 0.30% | 5 |
Iowa | 11 | 2516 | No maintenance since 2011. | 228.73 | 0.44% | 15 |
South Carolina | 12 | 2409 | Originator inactive since 2013. Last maintenance 2009. | 200.75 | 0.50% | 4 |
Delaware | 12 | 2483 | Originator banned. Selected pages same as in 2007. | 206.92 | 0.48% | |
Rhode Island | 12 | 2760 | Last article update 2012. | 230.00 | 0.43% | 24 |
Wisconsin | 13 | 3132 | Originator inactive since 2009. | 240.92 | 0.42% | |
Oklahoma | 13 | 2708 | Originator inactive since 2007. Has had some maintenance since then. | 208.31 | 0.48% | 63 |
Nevada | 14 | 2600 | 185.71 | 0.54% | ||
Indiana | 14 | 2787 | Originator inactive since 2010. No maintenance since 2010, except news is 2016. | 199.07 | 0.50% | |
Kentucky | 14 | 2927 | No maintenance since 2010. | 209.07 | 0.48% | |
Kansas | 14 | 2813 | Originator inactive since 2014. | 200.93 | 0.50% | |
Mississippi | 14 | 2737 | Originator inactive since 2012. | 195.50 | 0.51% | |
Minnesota | 15 | 3785 | Originator inactive since 2018. | 252.33 | 0.40% | |
Maryland | 15 | 3315 | Originator inactive since 2016. | 221.00 | 0.45% | |
Connecticut | 16 | 3109 | Being reworked by MJL. | 194.31 | 0.51% | |
Michigan | 16 | 3912 | Originator inactive since 2013 | 244.50 | 0.41% | |
Louisiana | 16 | 3186 | Originator inactive since 2007. | 199.13 | 0.50% | |
New Mexico | 16 | 3332 | Originator inactive since 2013. | 208.25 | 0.48% | |
North Carolina | 16 | 3747 | Originator last edited in 2011. One featured article at a time without other articles. | 234.19 | 0.43% | 1 |
Utah | 16 | 2857 | Originator inactive since 2007. Last maintenance 2009. | 178.56 | 0.56% | 46 |
Missouri | 17 | 3424 | Selected biography out of date. Last updates appear to be 2011. | 201.41 | 0.50% | 41 |
Georgia (state) | 17 | 4088 | Originator inactive since 2009. | 240.47 | 0.42% | |
Washington | 17 | 3881 | After correction for renaming. (Total of 39 pageviews in two months.) | 228.29 | 0.44% | |
Alaska | 18 | 6775 | Originator edits sporadically. Last maintained in 2012 except for AWB tweaks. | 376.39 | 0.27% | 28 |
Tennessee | 18 | 2972 | Originator inactive since 2016. Last maintenance 2011. | 165.11 | 0.61% | 11 |
A complete listing of state portals with metrics can be seen at WP:US State Portal Metrics. Portals that are not maintained are useless, and, if the information that is facing the reader becomes out-of-date, they are worse than useless, because anyone can edit an article, but heritage portals with subpages contain old copies of articles that require special knowledge to edit.
A state of the United States may be considered a priori to be a broad subject area, but this portal has been shown a posteriori not to be attracting readers or a portal maintainer. A portal is a miniature Main Page and requires a substantial investment in volunteer time.
This portal should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating a portal maintained by a volunteer who is willing to invest the time to support a miniature Main Page under the portal guidelines that are in effect at the time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:New Mexico
- Portal:New Mexico ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned micro-portal. Only 2 selected articles and 2 selected biogs. No new content added since June 2008.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers for over a decade, and it also has almost no readers: in Jan–Feb 2019, it got only 16 pageviews per day, compared with 3,332 views per day for the head article New Mexico. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Has had time to mature, which hasn't happened. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete
This is an unmaintained and little-viewed portal on a state of the United States. The following is a listing of the least-viewed state portals:
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Comments | Ratio | Percent | Articles |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
North Dakota | 8 | 1869 | Originator inactive since 2011. Not mained since 2007. | 233.63 | 0.43% | 12 |
New Hampshire | 8 | 2394 | No maintenance since 2008. Two articles. Two biographies. | 299.25 | 0.33% | 4 |
South Dakota | 8 | 1726 | No maintenance since 2010. | 215.75 | 0.46% | 6 |
Montana | 9 | 3786 | Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance in 2008. | 420.67 | 0.24% | 12 |
Idaho | 9 | 2377 | Originator inactive since 2011. Two biographies. Two articles. Last maintained in 2008. | 264.11 | 0.38% | 4 |
Maine | 10 | 2999 | 299.90 | 0.33% | ||
West Virginia | 10 | 2644 | Originator inactive since 2011. No maintenance since 2011. | 264.40 | 0.38% | |
Vermont | 10 | 2081 | 5 articles and 3 bios, last updated in 2008. Last tweaked in 2016. | 208.10 | 0.48% | 8 |
Nebraska | 10 | 2929 | Originator inactive since 2012. No maintenance since 2010. | 292.90 | 0.34% | 2 |
Wyoming | 11 | 3713 | Editor edits sporadically. News is obsolete. 4 articles and 1 bio, last updated in 2008. | 337.55 | 0.30% | 5 |
Iowa | 11 | 2516 | No maintenance since 2011. | 228.73 | 0.44% | 15 |
South Carolina | 12 | 2409 | Originator inactive since 2013. Last maintenance 2009. | 200.75 | 0.50% | 4 |
Delaware | 12 | 2483 | Originator banned. Selected pages same as in 2007. | 206.92 | 0.48% | |
Rhode Island | 12 | 2760 | Last article update 2012. | 230.00 | 0.43% | 24 |
Wisconsin | 13 | 3132 | Originator inactive since 2009. | 240.92 | 0.42% | |
Oklahoma | 13 | 2708 | Originator inactive since 2007. Has had some maintenance since then. | 208.31 | 0.48% | 63 |
Nevada | 14 | 2600 | 185.71 | 0.54% | ||
Indiana | 14 | 2787 | Originator inactive since 2010. No maintenance since 2010, except news is 2016. | 199.07 | 0.50% | |
Kentucky | 14 | 2927 | No maintenance since 2010. | 209.07 | 0.48% | |
Kansas | 14 | 2813 | Originator inactive since 2014. | 200.93 | 0.50% | |
Mississippi | 14 | 2737 | Originator inactive since 2012. | 195.50 | 0.51% | |
Minnesota | 15 | 3785 | Originator inactive since 2018. | 252.33 | 0.40% | |
Maryland | 15 | 3315 | Originator inactive since 2016. | 221.00 | 0.45% | |
Connecticut | 16 | 3109 | Being reworked by MJL. | 194.31 | 0.51% | |
Michigan | 16 | 3912 | Originator inactive since 2013 | 244.50 | 0.41% | |
Louisiana | 16 | 3186 | Originator inactive since 2007. | 199.13 | 0.50% | |
New Mexico | 16 | 3332 | Originator inactive since 2013. | 208.25 | 0.48% | |
North Carolina | 16 | 3747 | Originator last edited in 2011. One featured article at a time without other articles. | 234.19 | 0.43% | 1 |
Utah | 16 | 2857 | Originator inactive since 2007. Last maintenance 2009. | 178.56 | 0.56% | 46 |
Missouri | 17 | 3424 | Selected biography out of date. Last updates appear to be 2011. | 201.41 | 0.50% | 41 |
Georgia (state) | 17 | 4088 | Originator inactive since 2009. | 240.47 | 0.42% | |
Washington | 17 | 3881 | After correction for renaming. (Total of 39 pageviews in two months.) | 228.29 | 0.44% | |
Alaska | 18 | 6775 | Originator edits sporadically. Last maintained in 2012 except for AWB tweaks. | 376.39 | 0.27% | 28 |
Tennessee | 18 | 2972 | Originator inactive since 2016. Last maintenance 2011. | 165.11 | 0.61% | 11 |
A complete listing of state portals with metrics can be seen at WP:US State Portal Metrics. Portals that are not maintained are useless, and, if the information that is facing the reader becomes out-of-date, they are worse than useless, because anyone can edit an article, but heritage portals with subpages contain old copies of articles that require special knowledge to edit.
A state of the United States may be considered a priori to be a broad subject area, but this portal has been shown a posteriori not to be attracting readers or a portal maintainer. A portal is a miniature Main Page and requires a substantial investment in volunteer time.
This portal should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating a portal maintained by a volunteer who is willing to invest the time to support a miniature Main Page under the portal guidelines that are in effect at the time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Wyoming
- Portal:Wyoming ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned micro-portal. Only 4 selected articles and 1 selected biog. No new content added since June 2008. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers for over a decade, and it also has almost no readers: in Jan–Feb 2019, it got only 11 pageviews per day, compared with 3713 views per day for the head article Wyoming. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Has had time to mature, which hasn't happened. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Maybe waiting for portals to "mature" is Waiting for Godot.
This is an unmaintained and little-viewed portal on a state of the United States. The following is a listing of the least-viewed state portals:
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Comments | Ratio | Percent | Articles |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
North Dakota | 8 | 1869 | Originator inactive since 2011. Not mained since 2007. | 233.63 | 0.43% | 12 |
New Hampshire | 8 | 2394 | No maintenance since 2008. Two articles. Two biographies. | 299.25 | 0.33% | 4 |
South Dakota | 8 | 1726 | No maintenance since 2010. | 215.75 | 0.46% | 6 |
Montana | 9 | 3786 | Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance in 2008. | 420.67 | 0.24% | 12 |
Idaho | 9 | 2377 | Originator inactive since 2011. Two biographies. Two articles. Last maintained in 2008. | 264.11 | 0.38% | 4 |
Maine | 10 | 2999 | 299.90 | 0.33% | ||
West Virginia | 10 | 2644 | Originator inactive since 2011. No maintenance since 2011. | 264.40 | 0.38% | |
Vermont | 10 | 2081 | 5 articles and 3 bios, last updated in 2008. Last tweaked in 2016. | 208.10 | 0.48% | 8 |
Nebraska | 10 | 2929 | Originator inactive since 2012. No maintenance since 2010. | 292.90 | 0.34% | 2 |
Wyoming | 11 | 3713 | Editor edits sporadically. News is obsolete. 4 articles and 1 bio, last updated in 2008. | 337.55 | 0.30% | 5 |
Iowa | 11 | 2516 | No maintenance since 2011. | 228.73 | 0.44% | 15 |
South Carolina | 12 | 2409 | Originator inactive since 2013. Last maintenance 2009. | 200.75 | 0.50% | 4 |
Delaware | 12 | 2483 | Originator banned. Selected pages same as in 2007. | 206.92 | 0.48% | |
Rhode Island | 12 | 2760 | Last article update 2012. | 230.00 | 0.43% | 24 |
Wisconsin | 13 | 3132 | Originator inactive since 2009. | 240.92 | 0.42% | |
Oklahoma | 13 | 2708 | Originator inactive since 2007. Has had some maintenance since then. | 208.31 | 0.48% | 63 |
Nevada | 14 | 2600 | 185.71 | 0.54% | ||
Indiana | 14 | 2787 | Originator inactive since 2010. No maintenance since 2010, except news is 2016. | 199.07 | 0.50% | |
Kentucky | 14 | 2927 | No maintenance since 2010. | 209.07 | 0.48% | |
Kansas | 14 | 2813 | Originator inactive since 2014. | 200.93 | 0.50% | |
Mississippi | 14 | 2737 | Originator inactive since 2012. | 195.50 | 0.51% | |
Minnesota | 15 | 3785 | Originator inactive since 2018. | 252.33 | 0.40% | |
Maryland | 15 | 3315 | Originator inactive since 2016. | 221.00 | 0.45% | |
Connecticut | 16 | 3109 | Being reworked by MJL. | 194.31 | 0.51% | |
Michigan | 16 | 3912 | Originator inactive since 2013 | 244.50 | 0.41% | |
Louisiana | 16 | 3186 | Originator inactive since 2007. | 199.13 | 0.50% | |
New Mexico | 16 | 3332 | Originator inactive since 2013. | 208.25 | 0.48% | |
North Carolina | 16 | 3747 | Originator last edited in 2011. One featured article at a time without other articles. | 234.19 | 0.43% | 1 |
Utah | 16 | 2857 | Originator inactive since 2007. Last maintenance 2009. | 178.56 | 0.56% | 46 |
Missouri | 17 | 3424 | Selected biography out of date. Last updates appear to be 2011. | 201.41 | 0.50% | 41 |
Georgia (state) | 17 | 4088 | Originator inactive since 2009. | 240.47 | 0.42% | |
Washington | 17 | 3881 | After correction for renaming. (Total of 39 pageviews in two months.) | 228.29 | 0.44% | |
Alaska | 18 | 6775 | Originator edits sporadically. Last maintained in 2012 except for AWB tweaks. | 376.39 | 0.27% | 28 |
Tennessee | 18 | 2972 | Originator inactive since 2016. Last maintenance 2011. | 165.11 | 0.61% | 11 |
A complete listing of state portals with metrics can be seen at WP:US State Portal Metrics. Portals that are not maintained are useless, and, if the information that is facing the reader becomes out-of-date, they are worse than useless, because anyone can edit an article, but heritage portals with subpages contain old copies of articles that require special knowledge to edit.
A state of the United States may be considered a priori to be a broad subject area, but this portal has been shown a posteriori not to be attracting readers or a portal maintainer. A portal is a miniature Main Page and requires a substantial investment in volunteer time.
This portal should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating a portal maintained by a volunteer who is willing to invest the time to support a miniature Main Page under the portal guidelines that are in effect at the time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Lai91
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lai91 |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete Closed early as the page has already been deleted. (non-admin closure) Trialpears (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be purely promotional content. PamD 08:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
|
Portal:Python (programming language)
- Portal:Python (programming language) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
One bio. One selected article. Out of date. Not near enough for WP:POG. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - I concur with the points made by the nominator. I will add that a programming language is not a "broad subject area" likely to attract large numbers of readers and portal maintainers. The portal has 12 daily average pageviews, which does not justify a portal, as opposed to 6430 daily average pageviews for the head article. There appears to have been no maintenance since 2010. The low rate of viewing of the portal and the lack of maintenance may illustrate that the topic was never the sort of broad subject area intended by the portal guidelines. The subject isn't likely to find a maintainer who will provide the labor needed to support a miniature Main Page (and that effort would be better applied to many other aspects of Wikipedia). The portal should be deleted without the distraction of the concept of a replacement portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Abandoned micro-portal.
- WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Python is widely used, so a theoretical argument could be made that it is a broad topic. I disagree with that theoretical argument, but we don't need to rely on theory because we have empirical evidence that in practice this portal does not pass that test: it has not attracted maintainers, and it has not attracted readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Android (operating system)
- Portal:Android (operating system) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created 2016 and already out of date. One bio, one selected article. The selected article refers to "Android Pay," which has since been renamed "Google Pay." Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - One common method for the design of portals, in use at least since 2005, has involved sometimes large numbers of subpages of the portal, one for each selected article and picture, and sometimes for news items and Do You Know (DYK) items. Often the subpages for selected articles consist of a copy of the original article, or a copy of the first part of the original article. The subpages for In The News (ITN) and DYK items may also be copies of the lead paragraph or a portion of the article page. This approach to design of portals is sufficiently commonly used that it can be considered standard. However, it is an honorable experiment that has failed, and should be abandoned. In numerous cases, it has been found that portals have displayed outdated and incorrect information to the reader. These discrepancies have been especially common with, but not limited to, political leadership. These discrepancies are a serious problem because they cannot be readily corrected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, meaning that any reasonably computer-literate person can edit an article; but editing the displayed information in a portal requires specialized technical knowledge of how portals are implemented, which is presumably why errors persist, sometimes for years. An editor who has Twinkle installed can tag articles in need of editing if they do not have the time or knowledge to fix them; but tagging via Twinkle is not available for portals. Experience has shown that the use of portal subpages that copy portions of articles results in outdated information being displayed, sometimes for years, because it is difficult to correct. This design technique, partial article copies, has been an honorable experiment over the course of more than a decade, but the experiment should be assessed to have been a failure. Some other design approach for portals should be used in the future.
- This portal has 39 daily pageviews, as opposed to 8144 daily pageviews for the head article. The ability to attract a large number of readers is not useful if they are being attracted to a portal that is out-of-date. This portal should be deleted, without prejudice to a new portal with a design that does not rely on partial copies of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:United States Air Force
- Portal:United States Air Force ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal maintainer User:Ndunruh asked me to take over this portal in 2011. I updated the news section monthly, but it was clear then that portals were not going to be attracting readers or maintainers. Accordingly this portal has otherwise not been updated much since it was created in 2009. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Portal:United States Air Force/Vehicle Spotlight/15 says "To date the Air Force has an inventory of 28 Reapers". General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper says "The USAF operated 195 MQ-9 Reapers as of September 2016". DexDor (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC
- Delete
One common method for the design of portals, in use at least since 2005, has involved sometimes large numbers of subpages of the portal, one for each selected article and picture, and sometimes for news items and Do You Know (DYK) items. Often the subpages for selected articles consist of a copy of the original article, or a copy of the first part of the original article. The subpages for In The News (ITN) and DYK items may also be copies of the lead paragraph or a portion of the article page. This approach to design of portals is sufficiently commonly used that it can be considered standard. However, it is an honorable experiment that has failed, and should be abandoned. In numerous cases, it has been found that portals have displayed outdated and incorrect information to the reader. These discrepancies have been especially common with, but not limited to, political leadership. These discrepancies are a serious problem because they cannot be readily corrected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, meaning that any reasonably computer-literate person can edit an article; but editing the displayed information in a portal requires specialized technical knowledge of how portals are implemented, which is presumably why errors persist, sometimes for years. An editor who has Twinkle installed can tag articles in need of editing if they do not have the time or knowledge to fix them; but tagging via Twinkle is not available for portals. Experience has shown that the use of portal subpages that copy portions of articles results in outdated information being displayed, sometimes for years, because it is difficult to correct. This design technique, partial article copies, has been an honorable experiment over the course of more than a decade, but the experiment should be assessed to have been a failure. It has also been noted that copying portions of articles to portal subpages without attribution is a violation of the CC-BY-SA copyleft and is not permitted. Some other design approach for portals should be used in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
US Military Portal Metrics
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Ratio | Percent | Comments | Articles | Notes | Type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
United States Army | 50 | 4430 | 88.60 | 1.13% | Portal appears to have been last maintained in 2016. Originator last edited in 2014. | 13 | Military | |
Military of the United States | 46 | 3246 | 70.57 | 1.42% | Originator last edited in 2014. Appears to have been last maintained in 2010. Many articles, and calendar of dates, but not currently maintained. | 82 | Military | |
United States Coast Guard | 18 | 2642 | 146.78 | 0.68% | Originator edits sporadically. Five biographies and one article. No articles added since 2011. | 6 | Military | |
United States Navy | 43 | 4234 | 98.47 | 1.02% | Originator inactive since 2014. No maintenance to equipment and biographies since 2010. | 26 | Military | |
United States Merchant Marine | 7 | 832 | 118.86 | 0.84% | Originator sporadic from 2012 to 2018, now inactive. No maintenance since 2008. | 30 | Military | |
United States Air Force | 60 | 3909 | 65.15 | 1.53% | Originator inactive since 2011. This portal has many subpages, but they do not appear to have been maintained since 2010. | 100 | Military | |
United States Marine Corps | 39 | 4573 | 117.26 | 0.85% | Many subarticles. Sporadic maintenance through June 2019. | 100 | Military |
- Portal:United States Navy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Utterly neglected portal. News section not updated since 2010 (last story was by me). Equipment section has had no updates since 2006. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete
One common method for the design of portals, in use at least since 2005, has involved sometimes large numbers of subpages of the portal, one for each selected article and picture, and sometimes for news items and Do You Know (DYK) items. Often the subpages for selected articles consist of a copy of the original article, or a copy of the first part of the original article. The subpages for In The News (ITN) and DYK items may also be copies of the lead paragraph or a portion of the article page. This approach to design of portals is sufficiently commonly used that it can be considered standard. However, it is an honorable experiment that has failed, and should be abandoned. In numerous cases, it has been found that portals have displayed outdated and incorrect information to the reader. These discrepancies have been especially common with, but not limited to, political leadership. These discrepancies are a serious problem because they cannot be readily corrected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, meaning that any reasonably computer-literate person can edit an article; but editing the displayed information in a portal requires specialized technical knowledge of how portals are implemented, which is presumably why errors persist, sometimes for years. An editor who has Twinkle installed can tag articles in need of editing if they do not have the time or knowledge to fix them; but tagging via Twinkle is not available for portals. Experience has shown that the use of portal subpages that copy portions of articles results in outdated information being displayed, sometimes for years, because it is difficult to correct. This design technique, partial article copies, has been an honorable experiment over the course of more than a decade, but the experiment should be assessed to have been a failure. It has also been noted that copying portions of articles to portal subpages without attribution is a violation of the CC-BY-SA copyleft and is not permitted. Some other design approach for portals should be used in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
US Military Portal Metrics
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Ratio | Percent | Comments | Articles | Notes | Type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
United States Army | 50 | 4430 | 88.60 | 1.13% | Portal appears to have been last maintained in 2016. Originator last edited in 2014. | 13 | Military | |
Military of the United States | 46 | 3246 | 70.57 | 1.42% | Originator last edited in 2014. Appears to have been last maintained in 2010. Many articles, and calendar of dates, but not currently maintained. | 82 | Military | |
United States Coast Guard | 18 | 2642 | 146.78 | 0.68% | Originator edits sporadically. Five biographies and one article. No articles added since 2011. | 6 | Military | |
United States Navy | 43 | 4234 | 98.47 | 1.02% | Originator inactive since 2014. No maintenance to equipment and biographies since 2010. | 26 | Military | |
United States Merchant Marine | 7 | 832 | 118.86 | 0.84% | Originator sporadic from 2012 to 2018, now inactive. No maintenance since 2008. | 30 | Military | |
United States Air Force | 60 | 3909 | 65.15 | 1.53% | Originator inactive since 2011. This portal has many subpages, but they do not appear to have been maintained since 2010. | 100 | Military | |
United States Marine Corps | 39 | 4573 | 117.26 | 0.85% | Many subarticles. Sporadic maintenance through June 2019. | 100 | Military |
Portal:Soccer in the United States
- Portal:Soccer in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unmaintained portal. Bios claim David Beckham and Guillermo Barros Schelotto still play (they retired in 2014 and 2011, respectively). News section links to Wikinews articles from 2016. Portal also strangely claims soccer is popular in the U.S., but that's another matter. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 09:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator as abandoned. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Soccer in the United States, but it's deceptive: most of the selected article and selected biog pages are blank. The last content added was Portal:Soccer in the United States/Selected article/9 in October 2009, nearly ten years ago.
- WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers for a decade, and it also doesn't pull in readers: in Jan–Feb 2019, it got only 18 pageviews per day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete
One common method for the design of portals, in use at least since 2005, has involved sometimes large numbers of subpages of the portal, one for each selected article and picture, and sometimes for news items and Do You Know (DYK) items. Often the subpages for selected articles consist of a copy of the original article, or a copy of the first part of the original article. The subpages for In The News (ITN) and DYK items may also be copies of the lead paragraph or a portion of the article page. This approach to design of portals is sufficiently commonly used that it can be considered standard. However, it is an honorable experiment that has failed, and should be abandoned. In numerous cases, it has been found that portals have displayed outdated and incorrect information to the reader. These discrepancies have been especially common with, but not limited to, political leadership. These discrepancies are a serious problem because they cannot be readily corrected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, meaning that any reasonably computer-literate person can edit an article; but editing the displayed information in a portal requires specialized technical knowledge of how portals are implemented, which is presumably why errors persist, sometimes for years. An editor who has Twinkle installed can tag articles in need of editing if they do not have the time or knowledge to fix them; but tagging via Twinkle is not available for portals. Experience has shown that the use of portal subpages that copy portions of articles results in outdated information being displayed, sometimes for years, because it is difficult to correct. This design technique, partial article copies, has been an honorable experiment over the course of more than a decade, but the experiment should be assessed to have been a failure. It has also been noted that copying portions of articles to portal subpages without attribution is a violation of the CC-BY-SA copyleft and is not permitted. Some other design approach for portals should be used in the future. The portal should be deleted without prejudice to a future portal that does not use partial page copies of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Miscellaneous Football Portal Metrics
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Ratio | Percent | Comments | Articles | Notes | Type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Association football variants | 4 | No head article - list has 81 pageviews | Deleted | Soccer | ||||
Football in the Phillipines | 0.35 | 31 | 88.57 | 1.13% | 21 pageviews in 60 days < 1 | Deleted | Soccer | |
Association football | 50 | 7502 | 150.04 | 0.67% | Has instructions for editors to add to portal. | 40 | Soccer | |
Football in Germany | 7 | 145 | 20.71 | 4.83% | Head article has red mark. | 12 | Deleted | Soccer |
Football in Malaysia | 0.4 | 22 | 55.00 | 1.82% | Portal and article almost unused. 24 portal pageviews in two months. | 27 | Deleted | Soccer |
Football in Argentina | 6 | 78 | 13.00 | 7.69% | Head article has redlink. | 22 | Deleted | Soccer |
Soccer in the United States | 18 | 251 | 13.94 | 7.17% | Originator edits sporadically. No apparent maintenance since 2008. | 40 | Soccer | |
National Football League | 20 | 8691 | 434.55 | 0.23% | Created in 2012. Last maintained in 2012. | 12 | Other sports |
Portal:Vermont
- Portal:Vermont ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is another unmaintained and little-viewed portal on a state of the United States. The following is a listing of the least-viewed state portals:
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Comments | Ratio | Percent | Articles | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
North Dakota | 8 | 1869 | Originator inactive since 2011. Not mained since 2007. | 233.63 | 0.43% | 12 | Deleted. |
New Hampshire | 8 | 2394 | No maintenance since 2008. Two articles. Two biographies. | 299.25 | 0.33% | 4 | Deleted. |
South Dakota | 8 | 1726 | No maintenance since 2010. | 215.75 | 0.46% | 6 | |
Montana | 9 | 3786 | Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance in 2008. | 420.67 | 0.24% | 12 | |
Idaho | 9 | 2377 | Originator inactive since 2011. Two biographies. Two articles. Last maintained in 2008. | 264.11 | 0.38% | 4 | Deleted. |
Maine | 10 | 2999 | 299.90 | 0.33% | Deleted. | ||
West Virginia | 10 | 2644 | Originator inactive since 2011. No maintenance since 2011. | 264.40 | 0.38% | ||
Vermont | 10 | 2081 | 208.10 | 0.48% | |||
Nebraska | 10 | 2929 | Originator inactive since 2012. No maintenance since 2010. | 292.90 | 0.34% | 2 | |
Wyoming | 11 | 3713 | Editor edits sporadically. News is obsolete. | 337.55 | 0.30% | ||
Iowa | 11 | 2516 | No maintenance since 2011. | 228.73 | 0.44% | 15 | |
South Carolina | 12 | 2409 | Originator inactive since 2013. Last maintenance 2009. | 200.75 | 0.50% | 4 | |
Delaware | 12 | 2483 | Originator banned. Selected pages same as in 2007. | 206.92 | 0.48% | Deleted. | |
Rhode Island | 12 | 2760 | 230.00 | 0.43% |
A complete listing of state portals with metrics can be seen at WP:US State Portal Metrics. Portals that are not maintained are useless, and, if the information that is facing the reader becomes out-of-date, they are worse than useless, because anyone can edit an article, but heritage portals with subpages contain old copies of articles that require special knowledge to edit.
A state of the United States may be considered a priori to be a broad subject area, but this portal has been shown a posteriori not to be attracting readers or a portal maintainer. A portal is a miniature Main Page and requires a substantial investment in volunteer time.
This portal should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating a portal maintained by a volunteer who is willing to invest the time to support a miniature Main Page under the portal guidelines that are in effect at the time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Subpar selected article. News section hopelessly out of date. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
June 24, 2019
Portal:National Football League
- Portal:National Football League ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Outdated and poorly maintained. Portal says 43-year-old Peyton Manning still plays for the Broncos and that Kevin Kolb plays for the Cardinals. No word on whether the Rams are playing in St. Louis. May need to screen page for concussions. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of maintenance. You'd think if any portal could draw enough editors to keep it maintained it be this one, but it's not. Kinda shows how pointless the whole portal idea has become. oknazevad (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per funny, but true nomination. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers, and it has hardly any readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - This portal illustrates an inherent flaw of the heritage-style portal design with subpages, where the subpages are copies of the selected articles. If the selected articles are updated appropriately, the subpages present obsolete copies of the content of the subpages. While any editor can update the content of almost any article, updating the content of a subpage requires specialized technical knowledge. This portal has 20 average daily pageviews, while the head article has 8691 average daily pageviews. The limited viewing of course means that there is less likelihood that a reader will either update the portal or tag the portal as needing an update. Oh, wait a minute. Tagging via Twinkle isn't implemented for portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - The article for the NFL is high quality already and garners exponentially more readers than this portal does. Toa Nidhiki05 01:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:United States Merchant Marine
- Portal:United States Merchant Marine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal has long been abandoned, even before the portal's creator retired. Many selected articles are out of date, including the James Garner bio, which still refers to him in the present tense (died 2014). Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not a small portal; Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:United_States Merchant Marine shows plenty of subpages, although some of the selected articles pages are blanks. However, it is abandoned, and an outdated set of content forks is not redeemed in any way by a large set of outdated content forks.
- WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers, and nor has it attracted readers: only 7 pageviews per day in Jan–Feb 2019. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - I concur with the comment that "an outdated set of content forks is not redeemed in any way by a large set of outdated content forks". There should be an acronym for that. The comment about Garner illustrates the inherent risk of portals with copied subpages. As BHG notes, this portal has 7 daily pageviews, as opposed to 832 for the head article. The content does not appear to have been updated since 2008. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
US Military Portal Metrics
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Ratio | Percent | Comments | Articles | Notes | Type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
United States Army | 50 | 4430 | 88.60 | 1.13% | Portal appears to have been last maintained in 2016. Originator last edited in 2014. | 13 | Military | |
Military of the United States | 46 | 3246 | 70.57 | 1.42% | Originator last edited in 2014. Appears to have been last maintained in 2010. Many articles, and calendar of dates, but not currently maintained. | 82 | Military | |
United States Coast Guard | 18 | 2642 | 146.78 | 0.68% | Originator edits sporadically. Five biographies and one article. No articles added since 2011. | 6 | Military | |
United States Navy | 43 | 4234 | 98.47 | 1.02% | Originator inactive since 2014. No maintenance to equipment and biographies since 2010. | 26 | Military | |
United States Merchant Marine | 7 | 832 | 118.86 | 0.84% | Originator sporadic from 2012 to 2018, now inactive. No maintenance since 2008. | 30 | Military | |
United States Air Force | 60 | 3909 | 65.15 | 1.53% | Originator inactive since 2011. This portal has many subpages, but they do not appear to have been maintained since 2010. | 100 | Military | |
United States Marine Corps | 39 | 4573 | 117.26 | 0.85% | Many subarticles. Sporadic maintenance through June 2019. | 100 | Military |
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Seamounts
- Portal:Seamounts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete Narrow-subject micro portal (2 articles, 6 pictures) that is abandoned and thus fails the WP:POG guideline. WikiProject is inactive; creator has moved on. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Abandoned micro-portal, with only two selected articles. That latest addition is Portal:Seamounts/Selected article/2, added in 2009. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Concur with comments by nominator and by User:BrownHairedGirl. No updates since 2009; no tweaks since 2013. The sort of interesting topic that may or may not be useful for a WikiProject but does not justify the effort of a portal that is a miniature Main Page. The portal has 6 average daily pageviews, as opposed to 258 average daily pageviews for the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- WikiProject Seamounts is archived (pretty much folded back into WikiProject Volcanoes half a decade ago) so there's no maintenance on the portals. I don't disagree with folding them back in, but be sure to clean up all of the cross-links before deleting. ResMar 21:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Narrow audience, poor quality. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:United States Coast Guard
- Portal:United States Coast Guard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Poorly maintained, narrow subject area compared to other armed services portals. The only selected article does not meet the standards of WP:POG. Also only one of the five selected biographies meets this guideline. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Portal has 18 average daily pageviews, as opposed to 2642 for main article United States Coast Guard. A heritage-style portal with subpages, has five biographies and one article, meant to have multiple articles. Last additions appear to have been in 2011. Originator edits sporadically. Maintenance is done sporadically but does not include updating of content. Portal guidelines recommend at least 20 articles, not 6. A little-used subportal of Portal:Military of the United States. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete this abandoned micro-portal. It has only 5 selected articles, and the most recent is Portal:United States Coast Guard/Selected biography/5, which was added in 2011.
- WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers for nearly a decade, and nor has it drawn in the readers: only 18 per day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
US Military Portal Metrics
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Ratio | Percent | Comments | Articles | Notes | Type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
United States Army | 50 | 4430 | 88.60 | 1.13% | Portal appears to have been last maintained in 2016. Originator last edited in 2014. | 13 | Military | |
Military of the United States | 46 | 3246 | 70.57 | 1.42% | Originator last edited in 2014. Appears to have been last maintained in 2010. Many articles, and calendar of dates, but not currently maintained. | 82 | Military | |
United States Coast Guard | 18 | 2642 | 146.78 | 0.68% | Originator edits sporadically. Five biographies and one article. No articles added since 2011. | 6 | Military | |
United States Navy | 43 | 4234 | 98.47 | 1.02% | Originator inactive since 2014. No maintenance to equipment and biographies since 2010. | 26 | Military | |
United States Merchant Marine | 7 | 832 | 118.86 | 0.84% | Originator sporadic from 2012 to 2018, now inactive. No maintenance since 2008. | 30 | Military | |
United States Air Force | 60 | 3909 | 65.15 | 1.53% | Originator inactive since 2011. This portal has many subpages, but they do not appear to have been maintained since 2010. | 100 | Military | |
United States Marine Corps | 39 | 4573 | 117.26 | 0.85% | Many subarticles. Sporadic maintenance through June 2019. | 100 | Military |
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete both as inadequately maintained, and capable of being covered in Portal:Military of the United States if the latter is properly maintained., Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
June 23, 2019
Draft:Lost in Space (franchise)
- Draft:Lost in Space (franchise) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No need for this page. Separate articles exists at Lost_in_Space, Lost_in_Space_(2018_TV_series) and Lost_in_Space. Masum Reza📞 17:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging AfC reviewer KylieTastic Masum Reza📞 21:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral - On the one hand, the fact that there are separate articles is a reason that a franchise article might be in order. On the other hand, the author of this draft has been indeffed for copyvio, and another editor can just start over. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
June 22, 2019
Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office
- Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
We have never had an "editing restriction" handed down by the WMF Office. Fram is not under an editing restriction; it is a ban. We do not list bans at WP:RESTRICT, and thus there's zero reason to have this page. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Apt nomination. Were this page needed by WMF, they would surely see to it that it gets created. There is no need for the community to create such a page in the meantime. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Noting here that I just informed Jehochman to this MFD as the primary contributor to this page. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- This page is needed to prevent admins from accidentally interfering, and to help hold WMF accountable for their actions. It is telling that they didn’t create such a page themselves. Jehochman Talk 13:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: I get people are still in a ferver about this hole WP:FRAMBAN situation, but pages like this are going to cause more harm than they ever could be worth. As Primefac has pointed out multiple times: Fram is site-banned; not restricted from certain types of pages. The following are specific types of editing restrictions:
Account restriction, Civility restriction, Probation (supervised editing), Move ban, Revert restriction, Topic ban, Article ban or page ban, and Interaction ban
. What isn't there? Sitebans. Therefore at a minimum, this page needs to be renamed.
However, it's a list of one user. The preferred location would be at meta for this sort of stuff. That way, you could list the users banned on de.wiki, zh.wiki, etc.
There's plenty of reasons not keep this page as it stands though that have not been mentioned. We shouldn't be logging WMF imposed editing restrictions (using this term as it's actually defined in our policies right now). There is a good reason why WMF announced Fram's ban but not his (alleged-according to Fram that is) I-ban with another user (diff withheld for privacy). Are we really going to have people publicly announce their I-Ban's with users here on wiki just so we can catalogue them? You're dealing with private info right there anyways. Now you are putting that stuff out there publicly with zero context? Very poor idea. It was private for a reason, and now you are opening people up to attacks that don't warrant them. That's just my pointless opinion on the matter, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: I get people are still in a ferver about this hole WP:FRAMBAN situation, but pages like this are going to cause more harm than they ever could be worth. As Primefac has pointed out multiple times: Fram is site-banned; not restricted from certain types of pages. The following are specific types of editing restrictions:
- This page is needed to prevent admins from accidentally interfering, and to help hold WMF accountable for their actions. It is telling that they didn’t create such a page themselves. Jehochman Talk 13:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Noting here that I just informed Jehochman to this MFD as the primary contributor to this page. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Look at the earliest diffs of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Who are the two editors who created that page? We are not bound by past practice. We do whatever works best. Jehochman Talk 23:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete
editors who are subject to site bans are listed at Category:Banned Wikipedia users instead [of at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions]
. Thus, although it may be a good idea to add User:Fram to Category:Banned Wikipedia users, the siteban does not belong at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)- Just as a note, I did find that we have Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. We need to have a list of what WMF Office has done, like it or hate it. Making their actions hard to track serves no good interest. Feel free to rename the page or make it a subpage of some other more appropriate page. Those are not reasons to delete. Jehochman Talk 20:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Jehochman, genuinely out of curiosity, why are the other WMF Office bans not listed here? Primefac (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)
- Nobody has added them yet. Please feel free to do so. I think it’s a mistake for us to separate the lists of bans and other restrictions. We need transparency of all these actions. Corruption thrives in the shadows. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Listing office sitebans but not community and arbcom sitebans at editing restrictions is not a step toward un-separating the list. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody has added them yet. Please feel free to do so. I think it’s a mistake for us to separate the lists of bans and other restrictions. We need transparency of all these actions. Corruption thrives in the shadows. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Jehochman, genuinely out of curiosity, why are the other WMF Office bans not listed here? Primefac (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)
- Keep but retitle per Jehochman. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and light it on fire. There is nothing helpful about this and it's logged on meta already. Praxidicae (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: Where? --Rschen7754 21:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Special:Log/WMFOffice for starters. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Right here. Praxidicae (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: I don't see Fram on that list. And Special:Log/WMFOffice (and the Meta version) is too hard to use as it is cluttered with alternate accounts and block-evading IPs. --Rschen7754 16:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Right here. Praxidicae (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Special:Log/WMFOffice for starters. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: Where? --Rschen7754 21:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Jehochman. A list of what WP:OFFICE has done should be kept here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- But sitebans aren't normally listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. I don't think anybody disagrees that were the office to impose a non-site ban it would properly belong on this subpage. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see why it needs to be listed anywhere. Bad facts make bad cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. We need to know when this is happening and to whom. If the editing restrictions page isn't the best place for it, it should be moved rather than deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I'd rather delete it, but we need this record. --Rschen7754 21:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Related to the project. MfD is not a forum for policy discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC). Rename to [[Wikipedia:
Editing restrictions/WMF Office]]. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)- I wasn't trying to turn this into a policy discussion. WP:RESTRICT is not for site bans, and I have no issue if it's decided that the page should be kept and renamed to something other than a RESTRICT subpage. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sure. Merge & redirect to Wikipedia:Office actions per User:SilkTork below (23:37, 24 June 2019). Is it an accidental fork? Include links to relevant logs at Wikipedia:Office actions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, but retitle per Jehochman - This should be more about Office actions taken, as well as which ones remain in effect and which ones have been mooted somehow. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and rename per Jehochman, NYB and others. Definitely relevant. Miniapolis 00:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep but rename per Jehochman. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep but rename' per Jehochman, NYB and others. ∯WBGconverse 09:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. The argument, This page is needed to prevent admins from accidentally interfering is unconvincing. Such actions are already logged, as stated above, at Special:Log/WMFOffice. I could see somebody not being aware that Special:Log/WMFOffice existed. I wasn't even aware of it before now. However, such banned users also get unambiguous banners placed on their home pages: User:Fram, User:İrada, User:Liliana-60, User:Graaf Statler, and an entry made in Special:Log/block. Any admin who performed even the most cursory inspection, would notice at least one of the later two before taking any action. If anything, this manually-maintained list will increase the odds of an accidental action, since it's likely to be out of sync with the official logs (as it is right now); any admin who consulted this list as their due diligence prior to unblocking would get a false picture of the real state of things. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- That calls for fixing it, include a link to the log. It doesn’t call for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- What additional value is added by copying the log entries to a manually-maintained list? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Link to, not copy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were saying we should keep the manually-maintained table, and in addition, provide a link to the log. If you're saying that we should just provide the link, and not copy any of the data, then I'm fine with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. I had no idea about this log, it’s existence let alone where to find it. The creation of a WP page as a manual log is evidence that someone feels it is needed. There will be others. WP pages that explain logs are very helpful. Deletion of this page could lead to more confused people in future, wondering “what was the unacceptable content” or “why was it censored”. Policy on fixing things that can be fixed without deletion is well covered by WP:ATD, and for good reason. Come back to mfd only after the fix is disputed. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were saying we should keep the manually-maintained table, and in addition, provide a link to the log. If you're saying that we should just provide the link, and not copy any of the data, then I'm fine with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Link to, not copy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- What additional value is added by copying the log entries to a manually-maintained list? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- That calls for fixing it, include a link to the log. It doesn’t call for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete
Keep and Rename I think WP:Editing restrictions/WMF is better. Masum Reza📞 17:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)- This does not fall under the purview of WP:RESTRICT. Why would you want to make it a subpage? Primefac (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Hmm. You are right. This page doesn't have some details listed here WMF Office bans. I was thinking the same as Jehochman. But now I understand. Masum Reza📞 18:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- This does not fall under the purview of WP:RESTRICT. Why would you want to make it a subpage? Primefac (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep since this kind of WMF action is now a thing, and apparently a thing which is beyond question, we should be able to keep public records on this Wikipedia for all to see. There appears to be no substance at all in the opposition notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- The issue here is why this is a problem when we have the block logs of WMFOffice and WMFLegal? Promethean (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The situation is still fluid, we should keep people banned by the WMF on file but clearly separated from the people banned by the Wiki-community and Arbcom. Count Iblis (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - this is one of the things that shouldn't *have to* exist, but given the situation, it should exist so that it's easier to keep track of what they're doing and what has been done in the past. It's an easy way for everyone to see the BS they've done (since I have a feeling this won't be a one-time event). Frood 22:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep While I don't personally agree with their addition of Fram to the list (nor do I agree with their ban in the first place, but that's another discussion by itself), I think restrictions placed by the Office are fine to be placed here. If it's empty, that should generally be more of a good thing than a bad thing. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- It will never be empty because there are indefinitely WMF-blocked users. However, Fram's ban is not a "restriction" that should be listed at WP:RESTRICT, it's a temporary ban from editing. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Again, "I don't personally agree with their addition of Fram to the list (nor do I agree with their ban in the first place, but that's another discussion by itself),". By restrictions I mean editing restrictions, not site bans (temporary or permanent). EggRoll97 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- That is the point of this nomination - this isn't an editing restriction, so we shouldn't have it as a subpage of WP:Editing restrictions. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Again, "I don't personally agree with their addition of Fram to the list (nor do I agree with their ban in the first place, but that's another discussion by itself),". By restrictions I mean editing restrictions, not site bans (temporary or permanent). EggRoll97 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- It will never be empty because there are indefinitely WMF-blocked users. However, Fram's ban is not a "restriction" that should be listed at WP:RESTRICT, it's a temporary ban from editing. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep/Merge to Wikipedia:Office actions (and Wikipedia:Office actions should also be kept). SilkTork (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep (rename optional) per Jehochman. I'm also going to add a thought here. Times change. When I was a young man the "Internet" wasn't even a thing yet - but as it came into being I accepted it, and even became active in it. Kids today are born with the Internet in existence; as well as what should be common sense in how to behave on it. If you don't want everyone to know about a thing, and/or you don't want to have something thrown in your face many years from now - Don't put it on the Internet Children in their parents basement should be held accountable for their actions. Even if they are not held accountable, even if they have some sort of "ownership" over a web-page or site; then, their actions and accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan documentation should made available. Pardon the cliche, but to paraphrase George Santayana: Those who fail to learn from their mistakes, are condemned to repeat them. If we can document the mistakes of the past few weeks, hopefully they won't be repeated. (I'm not convinced of that - but it's worth a shot) — Ched : ? — 16:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep (rename optional) per Jehochman, Newyorkbrad, Ched, et alia. --GRuban (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Haunting of 45 Pipitea Street
- Draft:Haunting of 45 Pipitea Street ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
unsourcedOR, and totally inapppropriate DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - There is no reason to think that this author will develop an acceptable draft from this topic. The topic might or might not be notable, but this draft is unsourced and is written as opinion rather than from a neutral point of view. I would have preferred some effort to explain to the author, but that probably would have been useless. Author is either floundering or foundering, not sure which. Reads like an essay containing original research, not even a particularly good class paper. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This is not what Wikipedia is for. WP:NOR. WP:NOTADVOCACY. They can use Facebook. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as irredeemable original research. The entire draft is based on the author's personal experience and interviews. That's not fixable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Template:User Mquin
- Template:User Mquin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused nonsense userbox created by a user, who retired in 2012. —andrybak (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. No uses and harmless either way. 13:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJL (talk • contribs)
- Move it to userspace A WP:TFD would be better for this discussion. Though this userbox is useless, I think it's best to keep it and move it in their own userspace in case they need this userbox. Masum Reza📞 18:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- move to user space silly harmless personal user box belongs in user space and not template space. -- Whpq (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Skyler Bouchard
- Draft:Skyler Bouchard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Regardless of possible notability , this is unambiguous advertising DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Language is promotional. Obviously written to praise subject, may be autobiography. Draft is reference-bombed with unreliable sources such as Instagram. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Masum Reza📞 23:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Megha P Rao
- Draft:Megha P Rao ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Regardless of any possible notability , this is unambiguous advertising DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Language is highly promotional and cannot be neutralized. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Violation of WP:NPOV and this draft is promotional. Masum Reza📞 22:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Nebraska
- Portal:Nebraska ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is an unmaintained and little-viewed portal on a state of the United States. The following is a listing of the least-viewed state portals:
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Comments | Ratio | Percent | Articles | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
North Dakota | 8 | 1869 | Originator inactive since 2011. Not mained since 2007. | 233.63 | 0.43% | 12 | Deleted. |
New Hampshire | 8 | 2394 | No maintenance since 2008. Two articles. Two biographies. | 299.25 | 0.33% | 4 | Deleted. |
South Dakota | 8 | 1726 | No maintenance since 2010. | 215.75 | 0.46% | 6 | |
Montana | 9 | 3786 | Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance in 2008. | 420.67 | 0.24% | 12 | |
Idaho | 9 | 2377 | Originator inactive since 2011. Two biographies. Two articles. Last maintained in 2008. | 264.11 | 0.38% | 4 | Deleted. |
Maine | 10 | 2999 | 299.90 | 0.33% | Deleted. | ||
West Virginia | 10 | 2644 | Originator inactive since 2011. No maintenance since 2011. | 264.40 | 0.38% | ||
Vermont | 10 | 2081 | 208.10 | 0.48% | |||
Nebraska | 10 | 2929 | Originator inactive since 2012. No maintenance since 2010. | 292.90 | 0.34% | 2 | |
Wyoming | 11 | 3713 | Editor edits sporadically. News is obsolete. | 337.55 | 0.30% | ||
Iowa | 11 | 2516 | No maintenance since 2011. | 228.73 | 0.44% | 15 | |
South Carolina | 12 | 2409 | Originator inactive since 2013. Last maintenance 2009. | 200.75 | 0.50% | 4 | |
Delaware | 12 | 2483 | Originator banned. Selected pages same as in 2007. | 206.92 | 0.48% | Deleted. | |
Rhode Island | 12 | 2760 | 230.00 | 0.43% | |||
A complete listing of state portals with metrics can be seen at WP:US State Portal Metrics. Portals that are not maintained are useless, and, if the information that is facing the reader becomes out-of-date, they are worse than useless, because anyone can edit an article, but heritage portals with subpages contain old copies of articles that require special knowledge to edit.
A state of the United States may be considered a priori to be a broad subject area, but this portal has been shown a posteriori not to be attracting readers or a portal maintainer. A portal is a miniature Main Page and requires a substantial investment in volunteer time.
This portal should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating a portal maintained by a volunteer who is willing to invest the time to support a miniature Main Page under the portal guidelines that are in effect at the time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This is an abandoned micro-portal, with only two selected article pages, neither of which has been edited in the last 9 years
- WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has attracted neither readers nor maintainers.
- Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this still-born page is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Nebraska. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Very little content. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:West Virginia
- Portal:West Virginia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is an unmaintained and little-viewed portal on a state of the United States. The following is a listing of the least-viewed state portals:
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Comments | Ratio | Percent | Articles | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
North Dakota | 8 | 1869 | Originator inactive since 2011. Not mained since 2007. | 233.63 | 0.43% | 12 | Deleted. |
New Hampshire | 8 | 2394 | No maintenance since 2008. Two articles. Two biographies. | 299.25 | 0.33% | 4 | Deleted. |
South Dakota | 8 | 1726 | No maintenance since 2010. | 215.75 | 0.46% | 6 | |
Montana | 9 | 3786 | Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance in 2008. | 420.67 | 0.24% | 12 | |
Idaho | 9 | 2377 | Originator inactive since 2011. Two biographies. Two articles. Last maintained in 2008. | 264.11 | 0.38% | 4 | Deleted. |
Maine | 10 | 2999 | 299.90 | 0.33% | Deleted. | ||
West Virginia | 10 | 2644 | Originator inactive since 2011. No maintenance since 2011. | 264.40 | 0.38% | ||
Vermont | 10 | 2081 | 208.10 | 0.48% | |||
Nebraska | 10 | 2929 | Originator inactive since 2012. No maintenance since 2010. | 292.90 | 0.34% | 2 | |
Wyoming | 11 | 3713 | Editor edits sporadically. News is obsolete. | 337.55 | 0.30% | ||
Iowa | 11 | 2516 | No maintenance since 2011. | 228.73 | 0.44% | 15 | |
South Carolina | 12 | 2409 | Originator inactive since 2013. Last maintenance 2009. | 200.75 | 0.50% | 4 | |
Delaware | 12 | 2483 | Originator banned. Selected pages same as in 2007. | 206.92 | 0.48% | Deleted. | |
Rhode Island | 12 | 2760 | 230.00 | 0.43% | |||
A complete listing of state portals with metrics can be seen at WP:US State Portal Metrics. Portals that are not maintained are useless, and, if the information that is facing the reader becomes out-of-date, they are worse than useless, because anyone can edit an article, but heritage portals with subpages contain old copies of articles that require special knowledge to edit.
A state of the United States may be considered a priori to be a broad subject area, but this portal has been shown a posteriori not to be attracting readers or a portal maintainer. A portal is a miniature Main Page and requires a substantial investment in volunteer time.
This portal should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating a portal maintained by a volunteer who is willing to invest the time to support a miniature Main Page under the portal guidelines that are in effect at the time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has not attracted either readers or maintainers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Delete This one at least has some content, but it's likely to go out of date without an enthusiastic maintainer. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
June 21, 2019
Draft:Gráinne Quick-Humphrys
- Draft:Gráinne Quick-Humphrys ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Continually unsourced and unimproved draft. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging previous reviewers: @Shemtovca, Robert McClenon, and I dream of horses:. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - The submitter is making very slow progress on this draft. It previously did not have in-line sources. Now it does not have reliable in-line sources. It is being resubmitted with a reasonable amount of time between submissions. It probably won't become an article, but it's a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep with the same reluctance as Robert McClenon. I'm simply more reluctant to delete, because as previously stated, it is being improved. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Miyoko Schinner
- Draft:Miyoko Schinner ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
clear advertising, trustworthy report of UPE. If the firm is notable, it should be started over. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Yeah, I agree with DGG. Lots of advocacy there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Hopelessly promotional, will not be neutralized. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with DGG. Masum Reza📞 22:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Engkapish Language
- Draft:Engkapish Language ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
no conceivbable notability; why wait 6 months to remove it? DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete but this is a badly presented nomination because the nominator fails to mention the conflict of interest and the effort to use Wikipedia for self-publication. If the nominator did the work of researching what is wrong with this draft, and I assume that they did, that should be mentioned in the MFD without expecting other editors to do the same research also. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- I thought its unsuitability was obvious from looking at it. I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to !vote at a XfD without examining the item in question for themselves. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete selfpromotion of their own made up programming language. -- Whpq (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Kevin Hill, MPAS, PA-C
- Draft:Kevin Hill, MPAS, PA-C ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
no speedy reason, but no imaginable notability DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not a social medium and as work of an editor who is only here to list himself. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
June 20, 2019
User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine1—User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine12
- User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine1 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine3 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine4 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine5 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine6 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine7 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine8 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine9 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine10 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine11 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine12 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused userboxes for individual lines of the Madrid Subway, which are superseded by customizable {{User:Felinardo1/MadridSubwayLine}}. —andrybak (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Userboxes 2 through 11 because they are illegible due to a bad color scheme. Not addressing 1 and 12 at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- I just realized that, technically, all twelve qualify for speedy deletion per criterion WP:T3. —andrybak (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Vladimir Hirsch
- Draft:Vladimir Hirsch ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User recreated a deleted article. User who created the article knows the subject of the article personally, clearly in breach of WP:COI and WP:AfC guidelines. See [[1]] User is friendly outside of Wikipedia with banned User:Jan Blanicky and personally acts as a meatpuppet in many instances.(Banned user created the first iteration of the article, and both versions are practically identical, user also took the photo of the subject.) Article is impossible to source as all sources used are either, music blogs, self-published sources, unreliable, etc. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and Tag as having a Conflict of Interest. This is a draft and will be reviewed by a neutral reviewer. The nominator is making a good-faith error in nominating this draft, but needs an explanation of Wikipedia deals with conflict of interest . Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Robert McClenon says it well. The purpose of AFC is to give guidance in situations such as this. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - @Edgar181:, @Robert McClenon:. This article was already deleted once. I've dealt with this guy and his friend who is a serial abuser of Wikipedia and is permanently banned, and as shown before, acts as a meatpuppet for them.(User:Jan Blanicky, who created the first iteration of the article, and both versions are practically identical, Jan Blanicky even took the added photo of the subject.) I confirmed that they both personally know each other through the subject of the article and... his group of his friends goes around Wikipedia trying to add their friends into Wikipedia and also changing "Czech Republic" to "Czechia." They are all apart of an organization that does this latter thing. Anyway, it is literally impossible to source this article, the subject is not notable nor are there verifiable sources for him. The creator decided that numerous music blogs and discogs and allmusic and the artists own website were reliable sources, which they clearly are not, and are all against wikipedia policy. This should be a no-brainer to delete as there are literally no reliable sources.- R9tgokunks ⭕ 00:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Question for User:R9tgokunks - What was the previous name of the article when it was deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep It looks like a private war to me. Vladimir Hirsch is one of the leading musicians in the industrial music and well known in the scene, articles about him exist in other languages. I don't see any reason for "punishment" for his engagement in a completely different topic. CSCPHERO (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
An IP editor attempted to nominate this page but was unable to complete the nomination, so I am submitting it on their behalf per the following comment at WT:MFD:
- This essay is hostile and demeaning to new users. Wikipedia absolutely needs editors; it doesn't maintain itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.194.222 (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Since this is a nomination on the IP's behalf, I personally take no position about whether the nominated page should be deleted or not. RL0919 (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Maybe we should rename it to WP:Wikipedia doesn't need anyone who will take this essay personally ? As an aside, I didn't spot the part where it targeted new users. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. It's basically saying "go away, you're not welcome here." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.194.222 (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)- Keep. It doesn't target new users (who are unlikely to be digging through the essays anyway), and it honestly gets a point across in the least hostile way possible (note how much it points out that Wikipedia finds people's contributions valuable). If anything, this is something that more editors should read--if they did, we might not need WP:UNBLOCKABLE. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose I appreciate the nominator's advocacy, but yeah. And it's specifically NOT for new users. It may be that it got changed since I wrote this up, but that's another matter. keep Drmies (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep It is clearly marked as an essay, like many of the other such pages. It's a good reality check when the heat of argument becomes overwhelming. I suppose we could either replace the Pokemon reference with "the number of article on K-pop bands will continue to double" or maybe add it. But keep the article. And get over it. Geoff | Who, me? 15:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Waiting to see what is said about whether this essay targets new editors. If it is meant to be addressed to existing editors who have become puffed up, it is useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- That was the intention, yes. I aimed it at me, for instance, and let me take this opportunity to ping User:The Bushranger, in whose honor I wrote it up. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- And as I pop in, surfacing from things that are eating me - yes, this was never aimed in any way shape or form at new editors. It was intended, aimed, and targeted squarely at the long-term curmedgons who regularly, at the time (and probably still do), would declare that if they didn't get their way they would be (gasp) LEAVING WIKIPEDIA and without their august hand guiding things WIKIPEDIA WOULD BE DOOMED. Ergo, this essay. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- That was the intention, yes. I aimed it at me, for instance, and let me take this opportunity to ping User:The Bushranger, in whose honor I wrote it up. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – The essay makes an important point that applies to all users, not just new users. The second paragraph could use some revision, though, as I can see how it might give some readers the impression that the essay is aimed at just new users. – Levivich 18:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I see nothing wrong with this essay. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep It is an essay that makes some interesting and useful points, and no policy-based reason for deletion has been offered. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's incredibly condescending (WP:Civility) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.211.138 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - The proponent has made the case, by objecting to an essay that doesn't adequately kiss up to unregistered editors. The subject of the essay is established editors who demand to be kissed up to and have hissy fits, and they are bad enough, and Wikipedia can do without them. But an unregistered editor who wants to be treated as indispensable really is offensive, and no one cares if they take offense. Unregistered editors tend to fall into four classes. The first is new editors, who should be welcomed with encouragement to register accounts. The essay isn't addressed to them. The second is blocked editors. We really don't need them, at least not while they are blocked or if they are block-evading. The third is editors who have lost their passwords. We don't need to go out of our way to cater to them, because we assist them either in recovering their passwords or in creating new accounts. The fourth is established editors who for some reason prefer not to use an account, either because they fallaciously think that it preserves their privacy, or for some other weird reason. The proponent may be one of the second or of the fourth, and we really don't need them. They made the case to Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Arrogant in tone, serves no useful purpose. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - It's OK for an essay to take a fairly extreme position to make a point. We shouldn't use it as a welcome message for brand-new users, but there's nothing wrong with sharing it with someone who has begun to become a time sink. Would love to see a "Wikipedia does need you" counterpoint. –dlthewave ☎ 18:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep It is WP:TRUE and lighthearted. However, not to be used as a message to new users - as others have stated. (of course!) Lubbad85 (☎) 19:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Basically it says Get over it. I don't see a reason for deleting it. Masum Reza📞 04:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is diminished by editors being callously kicked to the kerb and also by telling those who have not yet been to suck it up and not think they matter. We all matter. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. There are many ways of conveying the intended point, but the appraoach taken in this essay is not constructive and wouldn't be short of a rewrite and re-titling. My main problem is tone. It's condescending. I doubt very much that a single editor, IP or established, has been positively influenced by this essay. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, this was squarely aimed at the "I'm leaving Wikipeida if I don't get my way" types, for whom the blunt language was, and sadly is, a necessity. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's not how it reads. The examples given are a parody of what dumb newbies do. The majority of cases I find of the "I'm quitting!" variety involve established editors with many friends who are also established editors. One particularly egregious example that comes to mind involved an administrator. That is the problem, and yes, it deserves to be addressed bluntly. But this one just reads like talking-down to the ignoramuses. Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep As mentioned above, this was aimed at long-time editors who believed they were rock-stars and that their contribution to Wikipedia-as-a-whole was load-bearing, that is to say if they flounced, the whole rotten edifice would collapse behind them. Sometimes, I'm sure, we still encounter those types in discussions - and they are why this exists. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - article can be taken offensively, and has no real need. Whilst it does not directly attack newcomers, it is definitely discouraging to be told no matter how much you do, you're insignificant to Wikipedia, whether or not it is true. →NΘN-MΘNICtalk 14:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Oh for Pete's sake. It's a healthy reminder that 1) flouncing will get us nowhere and 2) editors come and editors go, but the 'pedia endures. The Community (and now the Foundation) over the years has done things I found vexing or perplexing. I flounced once many years ago and no one even noticed. More recently, I returned from a lengthy hiatus. (just when you think you're free, they pull you back in.) The 'pedia still spun in its celestial course and the sun still shone upon it. The essay is quite true and apt. I do need Wikipedia more than it needs me. And I remind myself of this when I think about gilting myself into not taking (all that glisters is not gold) some time for myself and real life concerns. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- PS. ANd, to be obvious about it, I wholly disagree with the deletion rationales and subsequent counters to the "keeps". Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
June 19, 2019
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tiny workgroup inactive for 5-7 years with a couple of main contributors indeffed. Don't believe this NRM warrant a separate workgroup. The Falun Gong portal was deleted a month ago. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Keep and Mark as Historical. If there is a policy providing that defunct workgroups are deleted, I would like to see it. Otherwise, deleting workgroups that should instead be marked as stillborn seems like an attempt at time travel -- and time travel is dangerous because you might destroy yourself retroactively. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, salt and burn whatever is left The Falun Gong walled garden, along with its associated pages, Arbcom disputes and edit wars was one of the worst failures Wikipedia has experienced with regard to contemporary political issues. If the working group has fallen into disuse, that is for the best, and anything that can be done to keep it from becoming a time sink on the various drama boards (such as by eliminating its last remnants) is for the betterment of the project. Simonm223 (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. The reasons for deletion of Portals, namely that they are of negative impact to readers who encounter them, does not apply to WikiProjects that are solely directed to editors and are collections of resources for the improvement of mainspace articles. Yes, Falun Gong is a POV-risk topic, and may be subject to editor disputes and formal editor behavioural remedies, but these do not amount to a reason to delete this reasonable collection, albeit small, of resources for a well defined subject area. There is no case to delete the history of this work, and the context for for the history. Inactive WikiProject members, and troubles with selected members, are not reasons to expunge the history. A case may be made for archive with prejudice, but I do not see evidence that that case has even been put forward. Inactive WikiProjects should be left tagged "inactive", and not brought to MfD unless there is a good reason for deleting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Old business
June 18, 2019
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A stillborn WikiProject which became a stillborn task force which was then redirected to its own talk page, all in the space of a few days back in 2014, see revison history. This recently came up at RfD (discussion) but concensus was that MfD is the correct venue. PC78 (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @PBS, Thryduulf, and Sideways713: Pinging those users who commented at RfD. PC78 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I don't really see any benefit in deleting this - just mark it as historical and leave it for anyone who wants to know about it and/or take it forward. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. no point in deleting. Mark as historical, and let's move on. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and Mark as historical anyway if there is nothing worth deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Are we really going to mark a redirect as historical? What is the point of that? UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @UnitedStatesian: No, it is the talk page that will be marked as historical. The redirect is not under discussion here and is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: I tagged the talk page merely because the project page is a redirect, the nomination is not intended for the talk page specifically. Clearly if people !vote to delete the project page then the talk page would be deleted too, likewise if people !vote to keep the talk page because it is deemed useful then the project page would need to be kept too. I think you're making an unnecessay distinction. PC78 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @UnitedStatesian: No, it is the talk page that will be marked as historical. The redirect is not under discussion here and is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment ping the two users who edited the project page and the talk page user:RGloucester and user:Technophant -- PBS (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the page is a redirect to a talk page. @User:Thryduulf and User:MJL it is not historically accurate because it was set up by a user who was involved in content disput[s], who was indef-blocked around tthat time and the project gained no support from any other user. Keeping it labled historical is misleading. Now that this has been explained to you will you consider changing your opinion[s]? The user who created the page was unblocked earlier this year. -- PBS (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely none of that is relevant to my argument (nor anything I didn't know before): specifically there is no benefit to deleting the talk page (which is the page under discussion, not the redirect). The facts you cite also do not make the page not historically accurate (how could it?), and do not impact on whether or not the page is historical. Marking as historical just means "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." - it doesn't imply anything about its accuracy or worthiness. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've explicitly added the project page to this discussion since this was not intented to be about the talk page specifically, apologies if this has been the source of any confusion. Plainly, we are discussing both since one redirects to the other. PC78 (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Adding the project page is unnecessary - if the talk page is deleted it will be deleted too (per WP:CSD#G8), if the talk page is not deleted then it will be kept per the outcome of the RfD. The project page is therefore irrelevant to whether the talk page is kept or not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- But you made a clear distinction in your comments above, insisting that it was the talk page and not the redirect that was being discussed, and I don't see how that was relevant. We would not usually keep an unwanted page simply because of a few talk page comments. PC78 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why is this page unwanted? Nobody has yet explained what benefit deletion will bring to the encyclopaedia. We don't delete pages simply because some people don't think it is very useful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:Thryduulf since when were the contents of a talk page marked as historical? Better to delete the redirect because it redirects from Wikipedia space to Wikipedia talk and is misleading (what benefit will keeping a confusing redirect bring to the encyclopaedia? -- PBS (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- @PBS: If you want to delete the redirect independently of the talk page you should have nominated it at RfD explaining why the consensus of the recent discussion that the redirect is at worst harmless is incorrect. Why would we not mark a talk page as historical if it is? There are at least five Wikipedia talk namespace pages listed among the first 200 pages at Category:Inactive project pages (along with a user talk and a template talk). You still haven't explained why deletion will benefit the project - it is up to those who want to change the status quo to explain the benfits of the change. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- "you should have nominated it at RfD" I did nominate it (as you should be aware as you took place in the debate). To have done so again so soon after could have open me up to accusations of I "didn't hear that". I checked the talk pages listed at Category:Inactive project pages, AFAICT they are all related to pages that have been marked as historical with one exception where the project page is archived to talk space (?). So there is no president there to justify marking a talk page as historical without marking its project page as historical and as redirects are not marked as historical there is no justification for setting such an unuseful precedent as it would harm the encyclopaedia.-- PBS (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- But you are disagreeing with the RfD outcome by arguing here for the deletion of the redirect for reasons independent of the talk page being kept/deleted. How would marking this talk page historical harm the encyclopaedia? Why would the precedent (if it would indeed set one) be bad? Whether or not the page is marked as historical you still need to explain how deleting the talk page will benefit the encyclopaedia - which you have repeatedly failed to do. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Crikey folks, it's stillborn, single-user project with no content, no substantial discussion, created out of process (these thing are meant to be discussed first) and hasn't been touched in five years. I would have expected this to be uncontroversial housekeeping, and it's genuinely baffling why people are falling over themselves to keep it. Also ironic that this MfD has generated more discussion than the page being discussed. Oh well, moving on... PC78 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- But you are disagreeing with the RfD outcome by arguing here for the deletion of the redirect for reasons independent of the talk page being kept/deleted. How would marking this talk page historical harm the encyclopaedia? Why would the precedent (if it would indeed set one) be bad? Whether or not the page is marked as historical you still need to explain how deleting the talk page will benefit the encyclopaedia - which you have repeatedly failed to do. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- "you should have nominated it at RfD" I did nominate it (as you should be aware as you took place in the debate). To have done so again so soon after could have open me up to accusations of I "didn't hear that". I checked the talk pages listed at Category:Inactive project pages, AFAICT they are all related to pages that have been marked as historical with one exception where the project page is archived to talk space (?). So there is no president there to justify marking a talk page as historical without marking its project page as historical and as redirects are not marked as historical there is no justification for setting such an unuseful precedent as it would harm the encyclopaedia.-- PBS (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- @PBS: If you want to delete the redirect independently of the talk page you should have nominated it at RfD explaining why the consensus of the recent discussion that the redirect is at worst harmless is incorrect. Why would we not mark a talk page as historical if it is? There are at least five Wikipedia talk namespace pages listed among the first 200 pages at Category:Inactive project pages (along with a user talk and a template talk). You still haven't explained why deletion will benefit the project - it is up to those who want to change the status quo to explain the benfits of the change. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:Thryduulf since when were the contents of a talk page marked as historical? Better to delete the redirect because it redirects from Wikipedia space to Wikipedia talk and is misleading (what benefit will keeping a confusing redirect bring to the encyclopaedia? -- PBS (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why is this page unwanted? Nobody has yet explained what benefit deletion will bring to the encyclopaedia. We don't delete pages simply because some people don't think it is very useful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- But you made a clear distinction in your comments above, insisting that it was the talk page and not the redirect that was being discussed, and I don't see how that was relevant. We would not usually keep an unwanted page simply because of a few talk page comments. PC78 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Adding the project page is unnecessary - if the talk page is deleted it will be deleted too (per WP:CSD#G8), if the talk page is not deleted then it will be kept per the outcome of the RfD. The project page is therefore irrelevant to whether the talk page is kept or not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I have no opinion on whether to keep the talk page, but like Thryduulf said, and like the consensus at RfD said, the discussion really should be limited to the talk page only. If there's a consensus to delete the talk page, the redirect will go with it. Sideways713 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is no reason why a consensus one page is binding here as only three people expressed that view. There is no reason why this discussion can not end up with the deletion of the redirect which is the project page under discussion.-- PBS (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is no reason why the redirect should be under discussion here, since it's a redirect (why not discuss it at RfD? Well, because RfD would keep it and did keep it), all the content that might be worth keeping is on the talk page, and it's hard to see any circumstances in which the outcomes of this discussion would be different for the redirect and the talk page. As repeatedly pointed out at the RfD, "the page is a redirect to a talk page" is not a valid rationale for deleting the redirect, and it certainly isn't a valid rationale for deleting the talk page. Sideways713 (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is no reason why a consensus one page is binding here as only three people expressed that view. There is no reason why this discussion can not end up with the deletion of the redirect which is the project page under discussion.-- PBS (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria, do not delete as there is not reason to delete the harmless trivial history and things like this should not come to MfD unless there is opposition to the simple fix. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. There was never such a task force, so having a page/redirect saying otherwise is misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Military of the United States | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. (Copying from articles to portals without attribution is an infringement of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Portal:Military of the United States
Subpages are plagiarized (e.g. Portal:Military of the United States/Equipment), and need to be attributed back to their source. See WP:COPYWITHIN. Last news article is from 2011 (I wrote that one). Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete - Per WP:PWP#Broad Subject Area Is Arbitrary, If a portal topic is broad, it can hardly be integrated into another portal. A narrow portal topic can easily be integrated into another topic. This is the case here.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Standards |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Standards
There was no consensus when this page was moved from Userspace to become a project page. It has since become a neglected fork of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions, as per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Standards#Merger_proposal 1292simon (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:United States Army | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. (Copying from articles to portals without attribution is an infringement of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Portal:United States Army
Subpages are plagiarized (e.g. Portal:United_States_Army/equipment), and need to be attributed back to their source. See WP:COPYWITHIN. Last news article is from 2011 (I wrote that one). Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete - Per WP:PWP#Broad Subject Area Is Arbitrary, If a portal topic is broad, it can hardly be integrated into another portal. A narrow portal topic can easily be integrated into another topic. This is the case here.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
US Military Portal Metrics
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
|
June 17, 2019
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Are we in need of this? We have women deletion sorting but we have people and many occupation deletion sortings. I don't think it is needed. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This was created in connection with a proposed WikiProject that has already been rejected once by the community; the revised proposal is now at MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men. If a WikiProject is created, all of the associated infrastructure (deletion sorting, article quality and importance tagging, etc.) gets created as well. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - UnitedStatesian is mistaken, and deletion sorting lists aren't strictly tied to specific WikiProjects, but rather broad topic areas. This one, for example, can be reasonably used for any deletions related to men or men's issues, just as Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women is used for women and women's issues. -- Netoholic @ 22:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Question Which statement of mine is mistaken? UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Question - Why isn't this done by means of categories? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Do you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting as a whole? Its primarily so that people can watchlist these and see when pages relevant to their interests are proposed for deletion. Can't "watchlist" a category. -- Netoholic @ 01:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete.Per the results of MFD:WP:MEN, there is no interest in this sort of initiative for the moment. I'd say consensus should have been sought at WT:DELSORT, but it was and only met with crickets. There's no point to this subpage unless Netoholic is going to go around somehow convince gadget and script creators to support this ridiculous thing. Even then, I'd still be voting delete because it's just not needed. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)- Ping: Netoholic since I mentioned you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL: You are wrong about one thing - this list is -not- though directly associated with the proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Men - actually its purpose is two-fold. First, because Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People is the de facto "men" deletion list already, because women articles are largely put instead onto Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women - so that alone demonstrates the need for this list (I doubt you could convince /Women watchers to merge theirs to /People). Secondly, it is also a place for articles related to men's issues, without creating a more limited deletion list for that topic area. You are correct in that creating this is a necessary prelude to getting it listed in the gadget/scripts used for deletion sorting. Frankly, if this deletion goes thru, my next step would be to propose a rename of /People to /Men because that's what its function is right now anyway - and that rename will pass because its silly to have only /People and /Women... as if women aren't people, and men don't exist as a class. -- Netoholic @ 10:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Netoholic: Neto, I always appreciate how you ping me. It make my life so much easier! I see this arguement is ever so slightly crafted as to be different than the MFD I mentioned. I've stricken my !vote to see what other users have to say on the matter. I find this contention to be more compelling than previous, and I have no easy answer or response. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - As I understand how what this is, this is simply list of items for which deletion is being considered. No argument is being given why this deletion sorting list is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Both of you! Stop acting like boys quarreling. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – To me, the page creator's statement above, "
Frankly, if this deletion goes thru, my next step would be to propose a rename of /People to /Men because that's what its function is right now anyway ...
", proves two things: (1) the creation of this page, and the WikiProject:Men, and this whole "campaign" is about proving a point ("... its silly to have only /People and /Women... as if women aren't people, and men don't exist as a class.
") and not about improving the encyclopedia, and (2) the very reason we don't need a Delsort/Men is that it's duplicative of other delsorts ("... that's what its function is right now anyway ...
"). – Levivich 20:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
June 7, 2019
Portal:Civilizations
- Portal:Civilizations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Automatically created by The Transhumanist in September 2018. Portals should be updated on a weekly or monthly basis and drive-by spam which just reads from categories yields puzzling results when it comes to the slideshow. No prejudice against curated recreation, as it is a conceivably broad topic. SITH (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of Portal:Civilizations
This portal was created in September 2018 by User:The Transhumanist and is a slightly different style of portal, because the portal functions as its own navbox. Rather than using subpages, as heritage portals did, or one or more navboxes, or an outline, or a list article, this portal contains embedded lists that function in the same way as navboxes. So it isn't a content fork, because it is the list. This portal had an average of 2 pageviews per day in the Jan-Feb 2019 period, when the head article Civilization had 1301 (and that count of pageviews does not count views of the 49 articles that are listed in the lists). In my opinion, this is not significantly different conceptually from a single-navbox, single-list, or single-outline portal. I disagree with the statement that the portal was created automatically, because the work of selecting the articles was done de novo in this case. This portal is a navbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Paging User:BrownHairedGirl: This may be a slightly different model of portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
put your keep/delete/comments below here
- Weak Delete – Doesn’t duplicate anything, but 2 pageviews per day doesn't indicate that the navbox is being used. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Thanks for the ping, @Robert McClenon. The nomination by @SITH misunderstands the nature of this portal. This is not a navbox-clone; it is a single-page portal which uses an embedded list of articles, which is why it is categorised in Category:Automated article-slideshow portals with embedded list rather than in Category:Automated article-slideshow portals with article list built solely from one template.
- This type of portal is conceptually similar to the old-style portal with squillions of sub-pages, except that instead of multiple sub-page slisting one topic each, the topics are all listed in on the main portal page. In principle, this is very good way of doing preview-style portals, and some fine portals have ben built in this way, such as Portal:Geophysics.
- However, the devil is in the detail. TTH created many portals with embedded lists which were simply crude and indiscriminate dumps of categories. They looked like curated portals, but were in fact just another form of spam, and many of them have been deleted at MFD, including Electricity, Julius Caesar, Habitats, and Shipwrecks, Australian literature, Jawaharlal Nehru.
- Unfortunately, it takes some research to compare the embedded list against categories, outlines, navboxes and other such sources to see whether this is actually one of the rare curated portals created by TTH, or just another form of disguised spam. I will do that research tomorrow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Keep per now. This portal seems to be a good case of single-page layout. The concept of single-page portals is not entirely bad, it still needs to mature ... or die with all other portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – Keep per now per Guilherme Burn. Consider notifying some of the related Wikiprojects listed below to request improvements to the portal, and for the addition of links to the portal in main namespace articles, such as in their see also sections. More visible links to the portal = more page views. Less visible links = less page views.
- – North America1000 13:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete The ink was not dry on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men but for a few hours, when this proposal was restarted, which I think may be evidence of a failure to get the point. Any such resulting WikiProject that would be created would be subject to CSD as a recreation of content deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, but I think this should be nipped in the bud now. WP:DRV is thataway, not restarting the WikiProject all over again. (note: I was a keep !voter in the MfD, but the consensus of that discussion was very clear) UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This is ridiculous. Its an open proposal, and such proposals are not routinely deleted. They stay listed until enough people find them and sign up. Most of the deletes on that vote were specifically because this proposal process hadn't completed and that the project had few participants. -- Netoholic @ 06:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Close/archive the proposal: obvious forum shopping. It's a misreading of MfD to assert that it was closed as delete because "most of the deletes" were about a lack of proposal or participants. As the closer said, concerns also included: "violates WP:POINT and/or WP:NPOV, plus concerns about the clarity of the scope, the redundancy to existing projects (chiefly WP:MEN), the risk of it becoming a POV battleground". — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- This proposal was restarted after the MfD of the pilot project page, and the reworded Scope section of this proposal specifically addressed the scope concerns raised in the MfD. The forum shopping is really this new MfD which seeks to salt the earth and preclude any chance that WikiProject to cover this neglected topic area can ever proceed. How can it be claimed that Wikipedia has a systemic bias favoring men, when there are 17 WikiProjects devoted to women's interests, when men are restricted to a single WikiProject which is defined as covering the men's rights activism area? I am not a men's right activist. I only want to see articles related to men's interests improved to better quality. There is a difference. Its disgusting and sexist, and against the basic principles of Wikipedia to disallow a subset of editors from gathering in good faith to work toward article improvement. -- Netoholic @ 10:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
How can it be claimed that Wikipedia has a systemic bias favoring men, when there are 17 WikiProjects devoted to women's interests
— This is a non sequitur that beggars belief. Let's take something uncontroversial: the English Wikipedia has a bias favouring articles about people in countries which have English as an official language. (Not necessarily a bad thing but it's obviously a bias that exists.) Now note that we have a Ethiopian WikiProject, a Chinese WikiProject and a Mexican WikiProject—in fact the number of WikiProjects we have from countries who don't have English as an official language greatly outweighs the ones who do have it as an official language. Yet the systemic bias works the other way, and in fact we can say that the very point of these WikiProjects is to provide minority topics with a shared space for discussion and collaboration. That's the answer to "How can it be claimed ..." As for the claims that people aredisallow[ing] a subset of editors from gathering in good faith to work toward article improvement
, of course that's untrue, and lots of people have repeatedly pointed out relevant WikiProjects such as WikiProject Gender Studies. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: I first attempted to close the proposal (diff), and my closing was reverted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- The real question is why you attempted to "close" literally the most recent proposal listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals when closure is not even a standard part of that process, and even projects that never developed there remain listed indefinitely. --Netoholic @ 12:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you must know, I started at the top of the list; it was one where I knew the result from having participated in the MfD. I also closed Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Referees and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/ویکی منصوبہ اردو کمپیوٹر سائنس; do you have problems with those closures too? Though there is a backlog that you are welcome to help clear, closure is very standard, which is why there are over 400 closed proposals in Category:Archived WikiProject proposals UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- "do you have problems with those closures too?" - yes, of course I disagree with that because I am consistent... and since you only did those today and not "closed" any in the past, it makes it seems like you only did those to make it look like your delisting and closure of this one wasn't a deliberately targeted action. --Netoholic @ 13:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- It only makes it seem that way if one is unable to assume good faith on my part. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Citing AGF isn't an answer and just citing it doesn't mean you acted in good faith. If AGF was on your mind, you'd have asked me about this proposal on my talk page first. --Netoholic @ 13:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- And I think you should have come to my talk page (or the proposal's talk page) when reverting my closure. Also, following the instructions and creating it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men (2nd nomination) would have made clearer the intentions you now assert. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Nonsense. You're the one doing actions far out of process here. In addition to these "closures", I could point out that you unnecessarily moved template /doc and /class pages to under a totally different template and didn't bother setting up either of them properly. More salting the earth to make more work for others if or when this proposal develops. --Netoholic @ 14:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Is it normal process to have Category:Men articles by importance and Category:Men articles by quality, along with all of their subcats, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men set up when the project is still in the proposal stage? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Judging by the example of Wikipedia:WikiProject Referees, yep... not unusual at all to do that. Seems like many project proposers create a proposal, project page, and category structure at about the same time. Council is an optional process, after all. --Netoholic @ 14:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Referees set up their cats (diff) at the same time as their project (diff). Do you have a different example? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Judging by the example of Wikipedia:WikiProject Referees, yep... not unusual at all to do that. Seems like many project proposers create a proposal, project page, and category structure at about the same time. Council is an optional process, after all. --Netoholic @ 14:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Is it normal process to have Category:Men articles by importance and Category:Men articles by quality, along with all of their subcats, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men set up when the project is still in the proposal stage? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Nonsense. You're the one doing actions far out of process here. In addition to these "closures", I could point out that you unnecessarily moved template /doc and /class pages to under a totally different template and didn't bother setting up either of them properly. More salting the earth to make more work for others if or when this proposal develops. --Netoholic @ 14:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- And I think you should have come to my talk page (or the proposal's talk page) when reverting my closure. Also, following the instructions and creating it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men (2nd nomination) would have made clearer the intentions you now assert. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Citing AGF isn't an answer and just citing it doesn't mean you acted in good faith. If AGF was on your mind, you'd have asked me about this proposal on my talk page first. --Netoholic @ 13:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- It only makes it seem that way if one is unable to assume good faith on my part. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- "do you have problems with those closures too?" - yes, of course I disagree with that because I am consistent... and since you only did those today and not "closed" any in the past, it makes it seems like you only did those to make it look like your delisting and closure of this one wasn't a deliberately targeted action. --Netoholic @ 13:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you must know, I started at the top of the list; it was one where I knew the result from having participated in the MfD. I also closed Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Referees and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/ویکی منصوبہ اردو کمپیوٹر سائنس; do you have problems with those closures too? Though there is a backlog that you are welcome to help clear, closure is very standard, which is why there are over 400 closed proposals in Category:Archived WikiProject proposals UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- The real question is why you attempted to "close" literally the most recent proposal listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals when closure is not even a standard part of that process, and even projects that never developed there remain listed indefinitely. --Netoholic @ 12:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- This proposal was restarted after the MfD of the pilot project page, and the reworded Scope section of this proposal specifically addressed the scope concerns raised in the MfD. The forum shopping is really this new MfD which seeks to salt the earth and preclude any chance that WikiProject to cover this neglected topic area can ever proceed. How can it be claimed that Wikipedia has a systemic bias favoring men, when there are 17 WikiProjects devoted to women's interests, when men are restricted to a single WikiProject which is defined as covering the men's rights activism area? I am not a men's right activist. I only want to see articles related to men's interests improved to better quality. There is a difference. Its disgusting and sexist, and against the basic principles of Wikipedia to disallow a subset of editors from gathering in good faith to work toward article improvement. -- Netoholic @ 10:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - This smells of dead fish both ways. When the earlier MFD nomination was made three weeks ago, I said that I would wait to !vote to see whether the proponent or the MFD nominator was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I then !voted to Delete because I concluded that both sides were acting in good faith, but the proponent was making a good-faith mistake that would disrupt Wikipedia. The proposal was then deleted, and the closer noted multiple reasons for their deletion. The proponent is now re-opening what appears to be essentially the same proposal with what amounts to a hand wave to say that the issues identified in the earlier MFD have been resolved, but the hand wave fundamentally misreads the close, which identified multiple reasons, and did not say "Come back in a few weeks with a better proposal". So at this point the proponent is, if not being disruptive to make a point, simply being disruptive by being tendentious. On the other hand, this is a proposal, and it isn't necessary for the nominator to try to shoot down a misguided trial balloon immediately, and this warning shot at the misguided trial balloon is also disruptive. If the proponent really wants a further reasoned discussion, they should withdraw this misguided proposal and go to Deletion Review. If the nominator really wants to minimize disruption, they should withdraw this MFD and just ignore the proposal. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- The logical first step to addressing that MfDs concerns is to identify interested participants. I can't go to DRV without first showing I am not alone in wanting the WikiProject to form. This is a sign up page and discussion page to define the scope - that's what it's for. --Netoholic @ 13:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: from what I can see, the MfD was closed correctly, so DRV isn't of any use. As I understand it, if you want to work on a WikiProject proposal which isn't quite there, the WikiProject Council is the place to do it. Deleting this would be a bit like deleting an AFC submission because of questionable notability. The draftspace is for stuff of questionable notability which require work, in the same way the WikiProject Council is the place for WikiProject proposals that are work-in-progress.
For what it's worth I was uninvolved in the original MfD and am indifferent regarding the proposal in its current form.SITH (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Edit: I've put my two cents on the actual issue at hand in here. The TL;DR version is I think WikiProjects based on identitarian activism should be merged with their counterparts and named after the particular category of identity to which the activism pertains. My !vote on the deletion here stays the same, although I have struck the statement about my uninvolvement on the issue for the closer's assistance. SITH (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – The proposal is going nowhere, no matter how much the goals/scope are wordsmithed. A WikiProject is a collaboration among a group of editors. It's exceedingly clear at this point that there is not a group of editors out there who want to work on this – it's just one editor, and you can't make a WikiProject with just one editor. – Levivich 14:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Restore close. Delete is unnecessary here. The proposal is harmless after it's closed with a note not to propose it again pending some change of massive events. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or Close. I don't mind which, but it's very clear that this not a collaboration between editors, just one editor wanting to call himself a WikiProject. There's a serious WP:IDHT issue here, and it's time for Netoholic to stop WP:FORUMSHOPping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
June 5, 2019
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Computer graphics |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Portal:Computer graphics
Abandoned mini-portal on the topic of computer graphics. Created[2] in June 2008 by Dhatfield (talk · contribs). The lead of WP:POG has said since late 2006 "Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance", but that has not happened here: Dhatfield's last edit to this portal was in September 2008,[3] (only 3 months after the portal was created). Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Computer graphics shows a modest collection of sub-pages:
Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Computer graphics and its poor navbox Template:Computer graphics. Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app. Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portals fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game:
Maybe someday someone will build and maintain a portal which actually adds value for readers. But if so, they will do better to start afresh, rather than building on these 10-year-old content forks. So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
|
May 1, 2019
University portals
- Portal:University of Chicago ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Fordham University ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:University of Missouri ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:University of Montana ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Osaka University ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:University of Pittsburgh ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Texas A&M University ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Texas Tech University ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Washington & Jefferson College ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- (Convenience links: subject articles University of Chicago, Fordham University, University of Missouri, University of Montana, Osaka University, University of Pittsburgh, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, Washington & Jefferson College)
- (Wikipedia:WikiProject Mizzou, Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas A&M, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas Tech University courtesy talkpage notified)
- Delete I think I can interpret the consensus established at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:University_of_Arkansas_at_Pine_Bluff to be: unless you are a 900 year-old university, it is very unlikely that you will meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. The subjects of these portals, (Portal:University of Missouri is single-page, the rest are multi-page), which are of course in various states of repair or disrepair, do not meet this requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Glorified navbox microportals for universities (41 portals deleted) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:New York University. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all per nominator. A single university is a narrow topic which fails the WP:POG criterion that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Will !vote after spot-checking. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Portal:Texas A&M University; Delete the rest. Texas A&M is a quite large and complex university system, and its longish list of article links seems to support that assessment. The portal's >11 year history also makes it stand out, even if the number of edits to it over the years has been limited. Happy to revisit my !vote if others feel these reasons are not sufficient per the guideline. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Crazypaco: specifically which ones have as many article-space links? Texas A&M is the 2nd largest in the US by enrollment. (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I would argue that Wikipedia article links don't make the actual institutions more complex or diverse or important. That said, Pitt portal has more linked articles than Texas A&M. It is true that Texas A&M has the second largest enrollment, but as defined somewhat narrowly as among only public universities and for single campus enrollment (if including its health science center as a single campus). If size was a criteria of prominence or import, than UCF, FIU, GSU, and USF would be among the top 10 universities in United States, let alone schools with major system enrollments like Liberty, the University of Phoenix, or Ivy Tech Community College. Clearly none of those latter schools are even among the most prominent institutions in their own states, or in many cases, even the most prominent schools in their own cities. That said, I agree that Texas A&M is worthy of a portal as it is a topic that covers a myriad of broad and varied topics, as are many other universities that don't already have portals. I do not believe being dismissive of the value of portals for an entire category of topics as diverse and complex as universities is appropriate and I believe it sets a bad precedent. After all, a role of portals is to introduce readers to a large, varied topic by curating the most representative articles.CrazyPaco (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Crazypaco: specifically which ones have as many article-space links? Texas A&M is the 2nd largest in the US by enrollment. (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't think a university needs to be quite 900 years old to merit a portal, but I think it does help if it has a large number of very prestigious alumni with decent-quality articles, as well as the sort of byzantine structure that results from centuries of haphazard growth. I don't know much about the US universities (or anything about Japanese ones), but I thought Chicago was one of the top ones? Still 5 articles, 5 biographies & an image is not enormous, and it does not look to have received much attention before The Transhumanist took over. Some of the others seem possibly viable too, eg Osaka claimed as 3rd Japanese university, but there just isn't time to assess them all properly, not just for what there is but what might be possible. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Per Pldx1's research below (which I haven't checked):
- Keep portals University of Pittsburgh and Washington & Jefferson College, which meet/exceed the minimum;
- Weak keep on portal University of Chicago, which has an international reputation and has some content worth preserving;
- Delete portal University of Missouri, which is automated, and Texas A&M University , which is static;
- Neutral on the others. Willing to keep if someone comes forward to maintain and expand them.
- On a more general note, I don't think universities are necessarily narrow subject areas (though some of them are), and bundling disparate portals is a poor way of getting a clear result. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Per Pldx1's research below (which I haven't checked):
- Strong Keep Universities are very complex institutions, often even large systems, with an incredibly broad diversity of related categories that fall under their purview. Many institutions have dozens to hundreds of notable associated articles ranging in topics from their nationally and internationally notable academic programs and resource centers, nationally notable athletic teams and programs, major research complexes and medical systems, nationally and internationally designated landmark buildings, major museums, internationally recognized faculty and alumni, major academic publishing houses and media productions, and arts, music, and theater programs. Many universities topics spread through all manner of human endeavors with varied missions and subunits, often with very unique and significant histories both locally and nationally. The curation and organization of these topics into introductory portals for these vast topics fit the very definition of what portals were originally designed for. CrazyPaco (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: !voter is portal creator/editor on Portal:University of Pittsburgh and was talk page notified; it is usually considered good form to disclose that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Portal:University of Pittsburgh - At least a great slideshow. Old portal, 324 subpages, created 2010-08-06 01:59:32 by User:Crazypaco. Empty maintainer= field.
article | biography | picture | dyk | athletics | |
chicago | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 | |
fordham | 2 | 5 | 4 | 8 | |
missouri | auto | ||||
montana | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | |
osaka | 2 | 2 | 9 | ||
Pittsburgh | 22 | 18 | 23 | 235 | 9 |
texas A&M | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
texas tech | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | |
Wash & Jeff | 18 | 3 | 10 | 21 |
- this one MUST be kept, at least to have an example of a large slideshow and to be used as a reference when evaluating ridiculous pseudo-portals pretending to describe and navigate into extra large and broad topics. Rem: the 235 are "events of the day", not DYK. Portal:University of Pittsburgh Pldx1 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Pldx1:: we don't need to keep a portal on a narrow subject area for that; Portal:San Francisco Bay Area has a 232-image slideshow. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Portal:University of Missouri - Useless duplicate of a navbox, 0 subpages, created 2019-03-01 02:50:44 by User:Grey Wanderer: Portal:University of Missouri. Pldx1 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the other 7 portals. Not even decent slideshows. Abandoned portals or too microscopic topics, at reader's choice.
Listing one by one, to be sure
|
---|
|
- Pldx1 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Slight update on Pitt Portal numbers that you listed above: one new article, one new athletic, and two new biography subpages have been added for a total of 71 subpages when counting images, but not including the 100s of "on this date" subpages which continues to grow with the goal of having information for all 365 days. Of note, the "on this date" information included in the Pitt Portal is a unique curation of information does not exist elsewhere (including outside Wikipedia). CrazyPaco (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and consensus from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Glorified navbox microportals for universities. SITH (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Further Discussion of University Portals
I said that I would spot-check these nominations, and am about three weeks in doing so, but this MFD has not yet been closed. Here are the metrics on average daily pageviews for the portal and for the article for all of the universities that have portals at this time, regardless of whether they have been nominated for deletion. (Many more were already deleted.)
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Ratio | Notes | Percent |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
University of Missouri | 15 | 643 | 42.9 | Period is 1 Mar 19 - 30 Apr 19, and includes a few high initial days due to a TFD. | 2.33% |
University of Oxford | 11 | 3,801 | 345.5 | Not nominated for deletion. | 0.29% |
University of Cambridge | 9 | 2,894 | 321.6 | Originator inactive since 2018. Not nominated for deletion. | 0.31% |
University of Texas at Austin | 7 | 1,644 | 234.9 | Not nominated; survived a recent MfD | 0.43% |
University of Pittsburgh | 6 | 823 | 137.2 | 0.73% | |
Texas A&M University | 5 | 2,005 | 401.0 | Originator inactive since 2009. | 0.25% |
Texas Tech University | 5 | 727 | 145.4 | 0.69% | |
University of Houston | 5 | 757 | 151.4 | Not nominated; survived a recent MfD | 0.66% |
University of Chicago | 4 | 1,632 | 408.0 | Originator blocked indef in 2016 for disruption | 0.25% |
Fordham University | 4 | 1,444 | 361.0 | 0.28% | |
Osaka University | 4 | 112 | 28.0 | Originator inactive since 2013. | 3.57% |
Washington & Jefferson College | 4 | 217 | 54.3 | Originator inactive since 2015 | 1.84% |
University of Montana | 1 | 280 | 280.0 | 52 total portal pageviews. Originator inactive since 2015. | 0.36% |
As can be seen, the University of Missouri appears to have the highest pageview rate, but it was only created on 1 March, and had initially high pageviews due to a TFD notice. No university portal had as many as 20 daily pageviews.
Although it can be argued a priori that universities are broad subject areas, the a posteriori evidence is that university portals do not "attract large numbers of interested readers". Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete All without prejudice to future creation in accordance with new guidelines. Willing to consider changing the Delete to Neutral for any university for which an editor makes a statement that they plan to maintain (or continue to maintain) the portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – Recommend a Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep All – There are too many portals in this bundled nomination to properly assess them all. This makes it quite easy to state "delete all" in a short paragraph, but makes it extremely time consuming to actually analyze each portal individually based upon each topic's own scope relative to WP:POG. No prejudice against renomination using single-entry MfD discussions. North America1000 21:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- When portals are MFDed in bundles, portals fans such as NA1K argue that the portals need individual nominations. When they are nominated separately, portal fans complain that there are too many MFDs. NA1K and other portal fans have had four weeks to assess the 9 portals nominated here, and that's plenty long enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Saying that a bundled nomination of NINE portals
makes it extremely time consuming to actually analyze each portal individually
and suggesting that NINE individual nominations would be better in this respect is (1) innovative: this is really a whole new argument ; (2) counter-productive: if User:Northamerica1000 really wants to keep all of them, it could be an error to suggest that only fallacies remain as arguments to keep (3) misses the key point: comparing makes better decisions. And here, a simple comparison shows that Portal:University of Pittsburgh belongs to an endangered species: unlike others, this one is a maintained portal. And we must protect this endangered species, by clearing those fake portals that lure the reader and create a strong rejection against the whole portal space. Pldx1 (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete All. On a technical level a single university fails the WP:POG criteria that portals should be about "broad subject areas" (e.g. the main article+navbox can handle it). However, at a WP:COMMONSENSE level, outside of TH edits, these portals are again, largely abandoned cut-and-pastes of a main article+navbox. Universities should be a place where Wikipedia wants to encourge new editors to join the project; any university student wandering into their portal, will get the impression that Wikipedia is a failing/decaying project. Britishfinance (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete All - A university portal is "per si" a limited scope. There is a "bias problem" too, much concern for the creation of portals to everything related to the US, Britain and Australia while portals of important themes are neglected.Guilherme Burn (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
April 22, 2019
Portal:BBC & Co.
- Portal:BBC ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Motörhead ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Linkin Park ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Sony ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Lenovo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Google ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Slipknot ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:SNK ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Oracle Corporation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Sega ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Nintendo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Portal:Apple Inc. ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)– Withdrawn.Portal:Microsoft ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)– Withdrawn.
{{priorxfd|Portal:Microsoft}}
This should be the remaining company portals. I have also included Portal:Motörhead, Portal:Linkin Park, and Portal:Slipknot. Unlike previous nominations, all but two have been maintained in the past (the exceptions are Portal:Lenovo and Portal:Oracle Corporation). The sole basis for the nomination is the limited scope of these portals.
I will begin notifying the creators of these portals to this nomination. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why I was notified. I didn't create any of these portals.--Auric talk 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- You made four edits to Portal:Nintendo last year that did not seem semi-automated, and I had a liberal mindset for who received notifications. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all as useless crap that no-one sees. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not a lieigimate reason for deletion.Rillington (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per the results on my previous batches of company portals. Update: I'm fine with any additional company portals added to this nomination as my logic applies to all companies. The topical portals like Portal:Software, Portal:Television etc cover these businesses. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – Did the previous batches of company portals consist of all automated portals? Was it a mix of automated and hand-created portals? I ask because people have been opining for deletion simply based upon portals being based upon automation, but some of these in this nomination are not, such as the BBC, Google, Nintendo and Sega portals. North America1000 04:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep BBC. There's good coverage of just the huge number of BBC television programmes, not to mention the rest of the BBC's activities. There was a dedicated Wikiproject, though it is now denoted semi-active. The present portal has 10 selected articles, 9 buildings, 25 DYKs & 12 images (despite the inherent copyright issues), but for some reason only a single bio; there's certainly room for expansion. The apparently broader Portal:Television in the United Kingdom is much newer and less developed, and if the two are merged BBC's history should be preserved. No opinion on the others (I've not examined them). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I think lack of maintenance can not be a parameter to discriminate between portals to be deleted or not. In that case, they have to propose portals for updating, not deletion. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with both comments. Rillington (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete them all
- - Old portal, 82 subpages, created 2006-10-13 08:32:51 by User:Unisouth. No portal on a single company Portal:BBC
- - Old portal, 34 subpages, created 2007-07-08 21:25:49 by User:Arundhati lejeune. No portal on a single company Portal:Motörhead
- - Old portal, 34 subpages, created 2008-09-06 16:40:39 by User:Elvenwong50. No portal on a single company Portal:Linkin Park
- - Old portal, 14 subpages, created 2008-04-18 07:39:42 by User:Ultraviolet scissor flame. No portal on a single company Portal:Sony
- - Old portal, 110 subpages, created 2009-08-11 14:12:23 by User:Wild mine. No portal on a single company Portal:Google
- - Old portal, 36 subpages, created 2008-02-01 05:07:57 by User:Blackngold29. No portal on a single company Portal:Slipknot
- - Old portal, 25 subpages, created 2012-10-21 20:54:36 by User:Georgethewriter. No portal on a single company Portal:SNK
- - Old portal, 31 subpages, created 2006-06-21 21:48:09 by User:Elven6. No portal on a single company Portal:Sega
- - Old portal, 61 subpages, created 2006-04-25 02:17:09 by User:Tree Biting Conspiracy. No portal on a single company Portal:Nintendo
- Moreover, saying
there's certainly room for expansion
is nothing but the usual fallacy. The question is not about the possibility of some entity Who Will Come From the Stars and do the job in some unpredictable future. A portal like Portal:BBC is supposed to be a useful navigation tool. Here, be means being right now. And this is blatantly false. User:Espresso Addict tells usI've not examined the other portals
. At facial value, this is surely true. But this seems to imply: "I've carefully examined the BBC portal". And this is less likely. In fact, the last editorial edits to the snippets of this portal are either 2008 or 2010 (see below). We even have this marvelous one:Specially built for the BBC and opened in 1960, BBC Television Centre in London is home to much of the BBC's television output. Studio TC1, at 995 square metres, is the second largest television studio in Britain. The corporation has plans to dispose of the building by 2015
. We should have plans to dispose of this kind of cadavers before 20015.
date of the last editorial edit of all the 10+11+12 subpages of Portal:BBC
|
---|
|
- Pldx1 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually I spent at least 16 minutes assessing this portal, probably more (I open all MfD'd portals that aren't clearly just automated in tabs and look at them all before starting to comment); I wish I could spend more time but there are so many suggested for deletion these weeks that there aren't enough waking hours in the day to do a decent job. I noted that I hadn't looked at the others at all for the closing admin because they should not assume that I endorse deletion of the others. I looked briefly at the set of article extracts, the history and the code, and paged through the building images (where this mistake was found) to check none of the images had been deleted but didn't read the captions. If one needs to spend more time than that on individual nominations within a bulk set, then the rate of deletion nomination needs to slow right down to make that at all feasible.
- Your (presumably bot-generated) dates are of limited value; there's no obvious reason necessarily to change the caption of, say, a picture added in 2008. Generally it still depicts now what it depicted then, though people die and buildings change in use, and possibly more thought needs to be taken as to how to future proof them. (XXX at yyy date remains true, even if the building burns down or the subject dies.)
- I have corrected the specific error that you noted, thanks for drawing it to the community's attention -- but I'm not planning to do any major work on any portal up for deletion, and certainly not in the present climate where it's likely to be deleted even if one were to succeed in bringing it up to a high standard within the time frame. There needs to be a mechanism for advertising under-maintained portals for a period before suggesting deletion, so that maintainers can be sought; akin to the two-stage featured article review process. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Espresso Addict: I have no clue as to whether you would be surprised by this statement, but I would agree with you for most of what you said. I have pretty meticulously reviewed these portals before I nominated them. I did not nominate these portals because they were unmaintained. In fact, I stated as much in my nomination:
The sole basis for the nomination is the limited scope of these portals.
On the portal issue, I consider myself a moderate. I very clearly wanted to maintain Portal:Webcomics, but it was deleted nonetheless. However, the speed to which things are being nominated is not the issue. It is mostly the fact we have no clear guidelines for this matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)- Thanks for the response, MJL. I don't agree that the BBC has limited scope, nor do I think it is similar to the companies with which you have bundled it. I do agree that clear guidelines would be helpful; I feel this mad scramble to delete everything in sight under any available rationale, when no-one knows or agrees (or in some cases cares) where the boundaries lie, is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and counter to the RfC last year, which (whatever it did conclude) did not conclude that all portals should be deleted willy-nilly. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- I really don't know what to say to that, Espresso. Portal:CERN was deleted with in the first batch of company portals. One of the ones I bundled, Portal:Google, has been almost consistently maintained since its creation in 2009. I put up some of our highest quality portals if you ask me. The way Portal:Nintendo used to look was great. I think that Portal:Microsoft has a breathtakingly stunning design. If there was ever a good group to be with, I would say it was a combination of the ones I nominated.
One estimate I made put the total number of individual portal nominations at 1,588 (faulty number because that includes redirects). The ones that get bundled are both good and bad. It saves the community time from rehashing the same arguments over and over again, but it can come at the expense of a more in-depth view.
When the guidelines are put forward, I suspect many of these bundled ones will be the first to get undeleted per the criteria we come up with. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)- Wasn't CERN automated from a navbox though? The MfD states it was. These are not. If I had more time & energy I'd review more of these; Google in particular might possibly be a sufficiently broad topic because of their AI research. But there's just too many this week, and I don't quite feel strongly enough atm.
- I wouldn't hold your breath either for guidelines or for undeletions. I suspect it is more likely that the entirety of portal space (save the main page & portal current events) will go. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- I really don't know what to say to that, Espresso. Portal:CERN was deleted with in the first batch of company portals. One of the ones I bundled, Portal:Google, has been almost consistently maintained since its creation in 2009. I put up some of our highest quality portals if you ask me. The way Portal:Nintendo used to look was great. I think that Portal:Microsoft has a breathtakingly stunning design. If there was ever a good group to be with, I would say it was a combination of the ones I nominated.
- Thanks for the response, MJL. I don't agree that the BBC has limited scope, nor do I think it is similar to the companies with which you have bundled it. I do agree that clear guidelines would be helpful; I feel this mad scramble to delete everything in sight under any available rationale, when no-one knows or agrees (or in some cases cares) where the boundaries lie, is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and counter to the RfC last year, which (whatever it did conclude) did not conclude that all portals should be deleted willy-nilly. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Espresso Addict: I have no clue as to whether you would be surprised by this statement, but I would agree with you for most of what you said. I have pretty meticulously reviewed these portals before I nominated them. I did not nominate these portals because they were unmaintained. In fact, I stated as much in my nomination:
Comment: I added Portal:Microsoft and Portal:Apple Inc..–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC) + 17:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)- @Pldx1, CoolSkittle, Legacypac, Daniele Pugliesi, and Espresso Addict: Pinging users for comment. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Those can be deleted too. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- On strike. Adding new lines to an already released list is a repeated annoyance. This is the reason why I systematically add the name of the portal to each and every evaluation I made. Nothing else to add. Pldx1 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment on additions. Purely on a procedural note, adding new items to a bundle after the first flush of people have commented is disruptive, even where participants are pinged: most people read MfD from the top, and ignore entries that they have already checked. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Pldx1 and Espresso Addict: This has been noted for the future. My apologies to both of you for the disruption. CoolSkittle, I have stricken the relevant additions and withdrawn those nominations. Sorry again, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all - Per WP:ADPROMO and WP:NPOV individual Companies portals are a tricky topic, better to deal with companies only in Portal:Companies. Portals of individual companies are also narrow topic like biographies portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not convinced the BBC, whilst technically a corporation under a Royal charter and with its own governing board/trust, as a largely (essentially) tax-funded national broadcasting body that creates/broadcasts free public service television & radio, falls squarely under the definition of "company". I don't know if there are any direct equivalents in other countries? As the oldest broadcaster in the world, and one of the largest, it has a special significance. And I know "I like it" arguments aren't particularly helpful but... as a Brit, it feels borderline offensive to suggest deletion of something related to the BBC when I wouldn't feel at all bothered by such a suggestion relating to a hundred-year-old British company. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Portal:BBC – Meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines per overall content availability, for example, as demonstrated by Category:BBC and subcategories therein. I also disagree with the notion above of deletion per "no portal on a single company", because it's personal opinion, and not based upon portal guidelines. North America1000 07:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Portal:BBC – Agreed. Rillington (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Further comment. Those advocating for deleting all individual company portals in favour of the top-level one might care to assess Portal:Companies, with its sparse & in some cases peculiar selection of articles, dull design and run of missing reference errors at the bottom. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Portal:BBC, like any other portal, should
help to browse on a particular subject
. But the basic fact is that nobody cares about this portal. The readers don't care: [wmflabs] says 7285 daily views for BBC, 28 daily views for Portal:BBC. The writers don't care: most of the snippets are from 2008, and there is no new editorial content since 2010 (except from the sole and only biography of this portal, who presented Sport on Friday in the 1990s, death 1999, snippet added 2018). Arguing there isoverall content availability
only underlines the fact that this dead portal is indeed a cadaver instead of complying withthe portal must be maintained and serve a useful purpose
as stated in §2 of WP:Portal/Guidelines. Once again, delete this not useable navigation tool. Or rename it: "In Memoriam BBC 2008, When We Were Younger". I will not comment about "no portal on a single company" since this disaster is surely not an advertisement for the said company. Pldx1 (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Procedural Close- This train is off the rails. I waited to review this and it isnow too much of a wreck to review.became an unpleasant statistical task to review. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)- To sum things up, the main contention is whether to (a) delete all or (b) weak delete all but keep Portal:BBC. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, now it is a officially a WP:TRAINWRECK. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- To sum things up, the main contention is whether to (a) delete all or (b) weak delete all but keep Portal:BBC. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep BBC, Google, Nintendo, Sega and Sony as there is more than enough scope for a portal about all of these. Neutral about the rest as I haven't had time to review them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Portal:Google – Broad scope, plenty of content available (e.g. see Category:Google), some featured content, overall meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines to qualify for a standalone portal. North America1000 03:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Portal:Nintendo – Broad topic, plenty of content (see Category:Nintendo for examples), plenty of Recognized content (see below). The topic meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines.
- – North America1000 04:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural keep. The nominator's decision to chuck in two bands in with a set of companies if very odd, and doesn't reach help a clear decision. There seems to be a strong case for considering the BBC separately to commercial companies. Yes, this is a trainwreck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep with no prejudice to renomination with better bundling. While two have been withdrawn, I think there's still scope for a decent argument based on WP:POG for Google and Nintendo. SITH (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- About procedure - The point to discuss here is not "how many Great Articles belong to such or such topic". Nintendo has 224 of them. Small player. BBC has 31+16+157 of them. Small player. Be More Modest and look at Dungeons & Dragons. And don't even argue: this is not the point. What is to discussed is (1) are these portals policy compliant ; (2) are these portals useful as navigation tools (guideline) ? At Dungeons & Dragons, the portal receives 12 views per day. One third of the worse score of any stub article that belongs to this project. Is someone pretending that BBC or Nintendo behaves otherwise ? At [wmflabs] you can check that absolutely no reader cares about these portals (better use the logarithmic scale! ). No writer cares either, as can be seen when looking at how old are the snippets. User TTH was editorially right when nuking all these cadavers, but wrong when replacing them by automated shit generators. And there we are: while intended to provide a navigation tool, these portals don't. Splitting this discussion into individual ones will only result in expanding the duration of the missa pro defunctis, but will not resurrect any of these portals. On the other hand, separating "In Memoriam BBC 2008, When We Were Younger" from "In Memoriam Nintendo, When We Were Younger" could perhaps give some peace of mind to those who require it to let the past slip out of their hands. Pldx1 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Pldx1: It may be worth noting that, unlike wp:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sims (2nd nomination), I did not revert to the pre-automated state. No one has even bothered to do this for Portal:Nintendo yet. The maintainers didn't even notice the change it seems... :( –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - This is still a train wreck, but User:Northamerica1000 managed to wreck the train on the MFD main line by inserting the name of WikiProject:Nintendo, punctuated to be magic words. This managed to confuse the numbering of sections on the MFD main line. I had to turn off the magic words. This was a good-faith error, but a real error. Please do not put anything in an MFD that will cause large-scale transclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I have since modified my !vote. North America1000 22:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep BBC on the basis stated above--it does look like it need re-vitalising, so it should be kept and revialized. Also Keep Google, Sony, and Nintendo on the basis of the same arguemtn as Appple. These are more than miscellaneous random companies. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Dear User:DGG. When you are saying Portal:BBC
should be revitalized
, are you saying that you will do the job, or are you only saying that someone else should do the job, but not you, who have more important things to do than updating a portal without readers? Pldx1 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- I cannot work on everything, so I concentrate on articles and drafts. Even so, at my level of activity, I can fix only a few of the thousands I spot that need fixing. I have never actually worked on a portal, or done anything substantial about categories or other navigational devices. Nor do I work with wikidata, or images. Nor do I try to fix things at CCI or SPA or LTA , though I will sometimes help there if checkuser is needed. None of this means I shouldn't give opinions on what needs to be done. We all rely on each other. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Dear User:DGG. When you are saying Portal:BBC
- Delete all None of these companies meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep BBC and Google - each of these has a significant number of related articles so a good candidate for a portal. Might need some work due to the method of creation, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. I've no comment on the other portals listed; my preference is "Keep" but the scope for some of them might not warrant a portal of their own. WaggersTALK 11:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, User:Waggers should work harder. Using his usual stereotypical sentence
Might need some work due to the method of creation
, as if Portal:BBC and Portal:Google were automated portals, and as if that was used as a rationale to delete says much. These two portals are old abandoned things from the past, created by the good old methods of this so glorious past of 2008. They were not nuked by TTH and quite nothing has ever changed to these sets of outdated snippets. I have already given shameful samples of expiry. Even 2013 is too recent there. It remainsmight need some work
. This work will never been done, too bad for readers sufficiently naive to open a Wikipedia portal. In any case, there are so few of them. Pldx1 (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, User:Waggers should work harder. Using his usual stereotypical sentence
- Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline. There are plenty of articles that haven't been edited in a long time; we don't delete them just because they're "abandoned", especially when editing can bring them up to speed, as it can in these cases. WaggersTALK 14:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Granted I haven't been following much of what has been happening with Portals but this MfD seems like a trainwreck. I'm not sure why there are three portals that are not companies here since this is supposed to be "the remaining company portals". Last time I checked Slipknot was a band not a company. I'm breaking my votes up based on the portals listed here as I do not feel all should be deleted.
- Strong Keep for BBC, Google, Nintendo, Sega and Sony -- I agree with the keep reasons above for BBC, Google and Nintendo. I also included Sega and Sony with this group as I feel they satisfy WP:POG.
- Neutral for Motörhead, Linkin Park and Slipknot -- These should have been listed in their own MfD with a clear reasoning specific to them as they are not companies.
- Delete for Lenovo, SNK and Oracle Corporation -- These three company portals I feel is more limited in scope than the others I mentioned in my Keep vote and may not meet WP:POG. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 11:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Analysis of Companies
- It was not helpful to combine 10 companies with 3 bands. However, this table shows the average daily pageviews between 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2019. These are old-style manual portals except for Lenovo and Oracle. Lenovo appears to be a single-navbox portal, created by a member of the portal platoon. Pageview metrics are not available for Oracle due to a name change and analyst limitations.
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Notes Percent BBC 29 6,679 230.3 0.43% Google 56 21,052 375.9 0.27% Apple Inc. 40 12,099 302.5 0.33% Microsoft 73 7,149 97.9 1.02% Sony 11 3,466 315.1 Originator inactive since 2008. 0.32% Lenovo 3 2,336 778.7 Single navbox portal, developed Dec 2018. 0.13% SNK 8 342 42.8 Originator inactive since Oct 2018 2.34% Oracle Metrics unavailable. Sega 12 1,852 154.3 Originator inactive since 2012. 0.65% Nintendo 42 4,454 106.0 Originator inactive since 2010. 0.94%
- None of the companies have more than 100 daily pageviews. None of the companies have more than 3% as many pageviews for the portal as for the article.
- Analysis of Music
- The following table shows the average daily pageviews between 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2019 for all music portals that have been considered so far. I am not making any claim that this table lists all bands, or all bands that have portals. If your favorite band isn't shown, either it doesn't have a portal, or its portal hasn't been debated yet (or sneaked past me).
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Notes Percent Eminem 13 19,275 1482.7 0.07% Rihanna 16 14,713 919.6 0.11% Taylor Swift 9 17,722 1969.1 0.05% The Clash 7 2,407 343.9 0.29% Adele 14 7,403 528.8 Second nomination 0.19% Justin Bieber 18 18,943 1052.4 Did something happen on 8 Feb? Accesses peak then. 0.10% Rush 9 3,334 370.4 0.27% Neil Young 8 5,806 725.8 0.14% Pink Floyd 13 8,655 665.8 0.15% The Rolling Stones 9 7,314 812.7 0.12% Led Zeppelin 14 8,103 578.8 0.17% Michael Jackson 24 28,527 1188.6 0.08% Jackson Family 85 3,956 46.5 2.15% Janet Jackson 7 5,926 846.6 0.12% Shania Twain 12 4,927 410.6 Median 8. Portal access has weird peak 6 Jan. 0.24% Frank Zappa 8 4,201 525.1 0.19% Aerosmith 10 3,224 322.4 0.31% Avril Lavigne 9 10,197 1133.0 Peak on 15 Feb in article access. 0.09% Queen (band) 50 59,785 1195.7 Article and portal accesses peak on 25 Feb. 0.08% Bob Dylan 15 9,373 624.9 0.16% The Supremes 7 2,437 348.1 0.29% The Beatles 15 14,088 939.2 0.11% U2 9 3,993 443.7 0.23% Grateful Dead 23 2,898 126.0 0.79% Iron Maiden 11 3,877 352.5 0.28% The Kinks 8 1,987 248.4 0.40% Elvis Presley 12 24,375 2031.3 0.05% Miles Davis 7 3,603 514.7 0.19% Whitney Houston 7 12,726 1818.0 0.06% AC/DC 10 7,542 754.2 0.13% Motörhead 8 2,182 272.8 0.37% Linkin Park 8 5,300 662.5 Originator made 4 edits in 2008 including setting up portal. 0.15% Slipknot 8 4,324 540.5 Originator inactive since 2016 0.19%
- The three bands that are listed last in the table are included in this nomination. They each have only 8 daily pageviews.
- 'Delete the three band portals, Portal: Motörhead , Portal: Linkin Park , Portal: Slipknot , each of which have too few views (8 daily) to justify a portal.
- Delete Portal:Lenovo, Portal:SNK, Portal:Sega, Portal:Sony, none of which have 20 daily pageviews.
- Question – Do Portal:Microsoft, Portal:Apple, Portal:BBC, Portal:Google, Portal:Oracle Corporation have maintainers?
- Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all including Google, Microsoft, and Apple. It is a bad idea to have portals for individual companies, as these portals rather look like advertisement boards. Except probably BBC since that is not precisely a privately held company. SD0001 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
April 19, 2019
Portal:Korea
Sandwiched between Portal:Asia and Portal:South Korea and Portal:North Korea this portal lacks scope real estate to occupy. It's kind of like the DMZ. I propose this be deleted and then recreated as a two page DAB to the two country portals. If the Koreas ever get back together we can revisit this. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – Mees WP:POG per topical scope (a broad topic, e.g. see categories below) and per high quality content available on Wikipedia about the topic (e.g., Featured and Good articles, etc., see High quality content below). Another idea is to Merge content from this portal to the South Korea and North portals, respectively. North America1000 00:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Categories
|
---|
▼ Korea |
High quality content
|
---|
stop messing how sections are numbered |
- – North America1000 00:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
And the discussion continues here
- Convert to disambiguation per nomination; this portal is contrary to WP:POG, which says portals should not be redundant to another Portal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Kill this shit: all Koreas, past and present, deserve better. Page views are low [wmflabs], this is the only good thing here.
- The Portal:South Korea is a shameful copy of the empty set: TWO pictures, TWO articles, THREE bibliographies, all from 2015. Ban Ki-moon + a film director + a speed skater, this is South Korea, as seen from this portal.
- The Portal:North Korea displays the following 12 snippets:
- The Korean War
- The Chaplain–Medic massacre, 1950, Tunam, South Korea
- The Hill 303 massacre, 1950, near Taegu, South Korea
- The Battle of Nam River, 1950, part of the Battle of Pusan Perimeter
- The Battle of Osan, 1950, south of the South Korean capital Seoul
- The Battle of Taejon, 1950, (Taejon is 50 minutes south of Seoul by KTX)
- The 766th Independent Infantry Regiment, NKPA, disbanded 1950
- The Art of the Cinema, 1973, written by Kim Jong-il.
- The 6th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK), 1980
- The 2009 North Korean nuclear test
- The Ryugyong Hotel (Pyongyang), 2011, scheduled to open partially in 2013
- 'The Interview', a 2014 American political satire targeting Kim Jong-un
- Korean war occurred 1950-1953. All of the Korean War battles had taken place south of the DMZ: don't this seems strange ? The infamous
scheduled to open partially in 2013.
shows how obsolete are those snippets. Aren't there any noteworthy topics/events that occurred post 2009 ? - The same goes for the six biographies:
- Kim Il-sung (1912 – 1994)
- Kim Jong-il (1941 – 2011)
- Kim Jong-un (born 1983)
- Jo Ki-chon (1913 – 1951) was a Russian-born North Korean poet.
- Han Sorya (1900 – 1970) head of the Korean Writers' Union, purged 1962
- Kim Pyong-il (born 1954), surviving son of Kim Il-sung,
- Aren't there any other people ? For example, Kim Jong-nam (1971 – 2017) is missing. Too recent maybe ?
- The Portal:Korea displays the following 11 snippets:
- The Korean War
- The Battle of Osan, 1950
- The Battle of Taejon, 1950
- The 766th Independent Infantry Regiment
- The Ryugyong Hotel (Pyongyang), 2011, scheduled to open partially in 2013
- The 2009 North Korean nuclear test
- 'Inchon', war film about the 1950 Battle of Inchon, 1981
- Rhee Taekwon-Do is a martial art school in Australia and New Zealand who has no relation to the World Taekwondo Federation (WTF).
- Asia League Ice Hockey, headquartered in Japan.
- Typhoon Shanshan, which mainly affected Japan, 2006
- Iris South Korean espionage television drama series, 2009
- Gyeongju city
- Remarks, anyone ?
- Then, we have the following biographical snippets:
- Choe Bu (1454–1504)
- Kim Ki-young (1922 – 1998), SK film director
- Seung Sahn (1927—2004), Korean Jogye Seon.
- Seung-Hui Cho (1984–2007), the mass killer at Virginia Tech massacre (listed 2012-2016)
- Ban Ki-moon (born June 13, 1944)
- Tessa Ludwick (born 1988), Korean American actress from Apollo Beach, Florida.
- Mo Tae-bum (born 15 February 1989), SK speed skater.
- Surely the 7 most representative people of Korea among the last 40 centuries !
- Then, we have the following biographical snippets:
- The shameful state of all of these three portals reflects a simple thing: nobody cares. WP:WikiProject Korea is as mythical as the haetae of the old, while the histories of the various subpages confirm the obsolescence. The guidelines are saying:
the portal must be maintained and serve a useful purpose
at WP:POG#In_general andSome portals update the selected articles and pictures once a month. Others update them weekly, which is preferred
at WP:POG#How_often_to_update?. This is not the case here. The already existing navboxes are providing navigation tools of a largely better quality. - As a conclusion: delete all this shit. All Koreas, and our readers as well, deserve better. Pldx1 (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Pldx1: I maintain Portal:North Korea (and sometimes poke around with the other two Korea portals as well). Let me explain some of the design choices of the former. Why are most of the "Selected articles" about the Korean War? Because most of the Featured or good articles on North Korea are about the conflict (undoubtedly because of the highly active Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and the general tendency to gravitate efforts toward US-centric topics). Regardless of where the battles took place, North Korea was always a combatant, of course. Unlike the recent "fully automated" portals, this one was never automated and it follows the prior de facto convention: "Selected articles" are not random articles from a category or navbox. They are actual handpicked quality content. That's because WP:PORTALs are to topics what the Main Page is to the whole project, and you don't see random crap linked from the Main Page, either. There aren't any FA class biographies so these are the three leaders + anything GA (Kim Pyong-il was there already). The article on Kim Jong-nam for instance is a lowly C, and, let me re-iterate: "Selected articles" are supposed to be quality content, not necessarily recent. There is an "In the news section" for that, and it's as up-to-date as the corresponding Wikinews page (that is to say, not very). I've updated the Ryugyong Hotel entry; like I said, this portal is not automated, so this is the obvious downside. In addition, I've added a few new GAs.
- There is a lot of triggerhappiness in both camps with the current situation on portals. My approach has mostly been to watch and learn. While there are obvious shortcomings with the old manual portals, the new fully automated ones have usually been even bigger disasters. I'm waiting for some sort of compromise to happen (perhaps in vain) rather than ruining portals and wasting time by taking extreme measures either way. Once we've settled on the method of building and maintaining portals, it's will be a more fruitful task. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Has anyone noticed that the portal says that Ban Ki-moon is the current Secretary-General of the United Nations? That is an old version of a page. Something is wrong here, illustrating both lack of maintenance and something technically wrong that shows frozen snapshots of pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Without prejudice to nominations for the two nation-states or any other portal, but that snapshot of a past page is weird enough to warrant a silver bullet. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural comment. Dear User:Northamerica1000. Surely, I should have opened a MfD for the Portal:North Korea and Portal:South Korea. Do you think it would be fair to add them here now, or that another procedure should be opened ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. The way Korea topics are organized is that there is only one WikiProject, WikiProject Korea and taskgroups for both countries. This is super convenient because literally everything before 1945, for millennia, is shared history that we don't want to duplicate in two projects. The same goes for many, many aspects of contemporary Korean culture that is shared. Portal:Korea is a great catch-all for such content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - When saying:
The way Korea topics are organized is that there is only one WikiProject
there is a right part: only one (shared history, etc.). Everything else is misleading. Top and foremost this is, which tends to suggest that the WikiProject Korea is alive, while organized tries to mask the cruel reality: only living bodies are organized for real. Using the so called Great Articles as basis is one of the reasons of the resulting disaster.
- 44 about Korean War
- 14 about mostly foreign topics
- 21 about K-pop and dramas
- 09 about North Korera
- 13 about South Korea
- 02 about (marginal) pre-1900 people.
- Navigation tools pretending to be portals about Korea and that have no links to Seoul or Busan nor Pyongyang or Kaesong nor to any notable people of the pre-1900 period are to be thrown out, with bathwater and shame. Pldx1 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural comment - Dear all User:Pldx1, User:Northamerica1000, User:Finnusertop, User:UnitedStatesian, User:Legacypac, User:Robert McClenon. I have nominated today Portal:North Korea and Portal:South Korea for deletion. Since the three deletions are related, it would make sense to relist this one so that all three nominations are listed in sequence and perhaps closed one by one but in sequence and by the same admin. Being largely involved, I hesitate to proceed by myself. What do you think about such a relisting ? Cheers. Pldx1 (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - My own answer is No. Let this discussion be closed unless a decision is made to relist it. The closer can look at the Portal:North Korea and Portal:South Korea portal discussions without the need to keep this one open. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with closing The discussions are separate; the two Koreas are countries, Korea is not. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- 15 days later - Supposed to be a navigation tool, this portal continues to have no article about Seoul, Busan, Pyongyang, Kaesong, nor any of the people selected for South Korean notes, while the Ryugyong Hotel is
scheduled to open partially in July or August 2013
as ever (see Portal:Korea/Selected article/9), and Ban Ki-moon isthe current Secretary-General of the United Nations
as he ever was (see Portal:Korea/Selected biography/1). Even during this deletion process, the keep !voters cannot be arsed to cure their pet portal from signaled failures. Therefore, the only long-term and reasonable cure is to delete this mess. Without prejudice to a restart from scratch, by people decided to provide a decent portal and to spend the required time. Pldx1 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's a bit premature to make requests for improvements while it is nominated for deletion. Common sense really. It would be counterproductive to spend time improving a portal that may subsequently be deleted, watching one's work vanish. North America1000 06:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree: my experience at AfD is that there is nothing like a nomination to bring forth a burst of improvement activity: rewrites, sourcing, adding images, the works. To me, it's more likely here that any prospective improvers recognize the redundancy with the 2 country portals will be fatal to this one, as it should be. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Don't talk so loud about Ban Ki-moon. There was no requests for improvement. Because I haven't any hope for any improvement. It was only the simple observation that, during this MfD, the keep !voters were not even trying to give the impression they have any intent to do any maintenance to this disaster. Why would they work harder if this disaster was kept ? This is only another case of the well-known pattern: without any crowd, don't hope for any crowd-sourcing to occur. Pldx1 (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- One more week later - What were you expecting ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- One more week later - What were you expecting ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep North and South Korea have only existed since 1948, before that the countries weren't divided, so any aspect of their history, culture etc which is from before 1948 will not come under North or South Korea. There's plenty of scope there. It isn't an automated portal and the content looks reasonable. Hut 8.5 06:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Dear User:Hut 8.5. You are saying:
the content looks reasonable
. Have you checked Portal:Korea/Selected article/9 that, even now, asserts:the Ryugyong Hotel is scheduled to open partially in July or August 2013
? Have you checked all this shameful set of expired snippets? The WP:WikiProject Korea is as dead as any other deceased WikiProject, and nobody has any intent to maintain the corresponding deceased portal. By the way, Choe Bu (1454–1504), is the only biography here related tothe before 1948 area
. Doesn't this seem strange? A portal is supposed to be a navigation tool, i.e. is supposed to be designed according to "there is plenty of scope here", and not only pay a lip service tothere is plenty of scope there
. Stop mocking the readers with this fake portal ! Pldx1 (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- I updated Portal:Korea/Selected article/9 to reflect the current state of the Ryugyong Hotel. This is typically the thing to do, rather than leaving outdated information in place as a pointer to qualify deletion. North America1000 20:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'm not "mocking" anything and I've been happy to get rid of plenty of rubbish portals in the last few months, including nominating many for deletion myself. There are two basic questions here: is the topic of Korea a viable one for a portal, and is the current portal content good enough to avoid WP:TNT? The answer to the first question is pretty clearly Yes, Korea has been home to advanced civilisations for thousands of years and has produced easily enough material for a portal. There are plenty of other pre-1948 articles which could be listed, just looking through the GAs and FAs I can see Hanpu and Juldarigi. And that's assuming that all post-1948 content is out of scope, which I don't necessarily agree with. That one selected article was out of date means nothing, and you could just as easily have fixed it (as someone else has) instead of complaining about it here. Hut 8.5 20:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- The snippets here are so outdated (fixing one doesn't fix the others) because nobody has any intent to maintain this so-called portal. Pretending that Hanpu + Juldarigi, when added to Tessa Ludwick + Choe Bu will provide a navigation tool inside the 40 centuries of Korean civilization and history is quite ridiculous. Here, the key problem is the pretense to describe Korea with the stock of the so-called Great Articles... when everybody knows how decentered they are from the core of the topic! Nothing about Seoul or Pyongyang! Nampo, Busan, Kaesong, unknwon cities ! Nothing about poets, painters, generals, rulers, temples, forteresses, cuisine, rivers or mountains. Nothing about anything. Are you that proud of this non-portal? In any case, readers already know, as can be inferred from the page views. Pldx1 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, regarding page views, the portal has received 2,600 views between 4/20/2019 and 5/20/2019. This is actually rather substantial, and one should keep in mind that main pages almost always receive more page views compared to portals. North America1000 22:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Dear User:Northamerica1000. I suppose that you already know that you are joking. (1) Saying that views par day is
rather substantial
for a portal appears as a sneaky comment against the whole Portal space. (2) This marvelous score is only the result of the present MfD, see [wmflabs]. Pldx1 (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Dear User:Northamerica1000. I suppose that you already know that you are joking. (1) Saying that views par day is
- Keep and Merge the other 2 Korea Portals into this one – This topic is sufficiently broad, and more than notable enough to warrant having its own portal. Since the differences between North and South Korea (which were a single country before World War II) are only political, and since Wikipedia has a single WikiProject covering all activities related to Korea, I think that we should merge all 3 portals together and put everything in one place. The new portal can definitely be updated/maintained with greater ease afterward. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep With a rationale such as "Kill this shit: all Koreas, past and present, deserve better." it is clear that the nominator is acting in bad faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Analysis of Korea and Countries
The following spreadsheet shows the average daily pageviews for selected past and present countries, for the period of 1 January 2019 through 28 February 2019. Each of the entries either is a country or has been a country. This is not a complete list of countries. If your country isn't listed, then its portal hasn't been nominated, and I haven't provided it for comparison.
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Ratio | Notes | Percent |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Germany | 104 | 15,549 | 149.5 | 0.67% | |
Kosovo | 10 | 6,104 | 610.4 | 0.16% | |
Nigeria | 53 | 8,707 | 164.3 | 0.61% | |
Azerbaijan | 14 | 5,839 | 417.1 | 0.24% | |
Korea | 35 | 3,135 | 89.6 | Article views include Korean Peninsula. | 1.12% |
North Korea | 51 | 6,870 | 134.7 | 0.74% | |
South Korea | 23 | 7,824 | 340.2 | 0.29% | |
United States | 235 | 42,004 | 178.7 | 0.56% | |
Ireland | 38 | 8,813 | 231.9 | Does not include 5867 views of Republic of Ireland. | 0.43% |
Seljuk Empire | 2 | 1,366 | 683.0 | Article views are for two related articles. | 0.15% |
Umayyad Caliphate | 2 | 1,983 | 991.5 | 0.10% | |
Austria-Hungary | 10 | 3,724 | 372.4 | Already deleted. | 0.27% |
Mughal Empire | 9 | 5,814 | 646.0 | 0.15% | |
Canada | 64 | 18,158 | 283.7 | 0.35% | |
United Kingdom | 133 | 31,041 | 233.4 | Originator inactive since 2009. | 0.43% |
Australia | 77 | 17,864 | 232.0 | 0.43% |
As can be seen, no country portal ever is viewed as often as 1.5% of the frequency of viewing the article. It is commonly stated by portal advocates and others that a country is a "broad subject area" and warrants a portal. Philosophers make a distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, between knowledge that is available in advance and knowledge that must be based on observation. It is possible to decide a priori that particular types of subject areas, such as countries, are broad subject areas. However, that is an incomplete quotation of the portal guidelines, and, because of its incompleteness, is misleading. The portal guidelines say that "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." It is not possible to decide a priori that a subject area will attract readers and portal maintainers. That must be observed, and assessed a posteriori. What has been seen a posteriori is that a portal often does not get even 0.3% as many views as the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, most portals don't get very many views, but that's an argument against portals in general, not this portal. If you want to get rid of portals in general then you should open a discussion about getting rid of portals in general, not try to get rid of them one by one by arguing that portals aren't very useful. Since a recent discussion about getting rid of portals in general decided not to we're pretty much stuck with them for now. Hut 8.5 09:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Further Discussion of Korea
add your keep/delete/comments below this line
Since it has already been decided to Keep the two portals on the two nations of modern Korea, the combined portal should be deleted, or disambiguated as recommended by User:Legacypac. An even better idea would be that of User:LightandDark2000 to merge Portal:South Korea and Portal:North Korea into Portal:Korea. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Who would merge (etc.) ? Anyone knows what would be required to have a portal, i.e. an efficient navigation tool into Korean topics. This requirement is a staff of volunteers decided to do the required work by themselves. But there is no such a staff. We only have Keep and pray for better days, that can be translated into Keep and let it rot more and more. While waiting for a maintainer Who Would Come From The Stars, it would simply be more honest to stop luring the readers: this abandoned wreck doesn't navigate. Pldx1 (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Disambiguate and Delete subpages. Per Robert McClenon's sound analysis above. Merging is a labor intensive effort that would be wasted here if you ask me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- A merge makes the most sense to me. The two Koreas have a shared history prior to 1948 so a single portal eliminates any overlap, and if maintenance is an issue then surely it would require more work to maintain two portals. IIRC, this portal predates the other two anyway. PC78 (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose disambiguation. I don't want to see pointless spamming of Portal:North Korea and Portal:South Korea to pre-division history articles. Also oppose merge per the above (no one has volunteered to actually do the work) and the fact that we just literally kept the two because their scope and condition was considered okay. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Portal:EastEnders
260 pageviews vs 71,400+ pageviews in 30 days shows how little value readers find in this portal compared to the head article which is actually a better portal for this topic - a single TV show. Portal has existed since 2006 and is maintained so it has had plenty of time to build readership. Time to cancel the article spinoff the audience rejected. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Page views are not a rationale for deletion. This is an extremely popular and long-running show in the UK, which has won many awards. There is plenty of Wikipedia coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Agreed. This portal acts as a good introduction to the topic and to its coverage on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Popularity of a TV show is not a rationale for a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Old portal, 24 subpages, created 2006-09-22 20:41:50 by User:AnemoneProjectors.
There is plenty of Wikipedia coverage
is yet another series of weasel words. This portal only directs to FOUR characters and THREE episodes, while pretending being some useful navigation tool. Stop joking. Portal:EastEnders. Pldx1 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC) - Comment - Legacypac has a useful point, which is that the portal has not built an audience in thirteen years, and probably never will. Of course, the page view metrics about other portals do not give much support to portals in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment as the creator and maintainer of this portal. I don't feel I can !vote in this as I'm involved and but I've occasionally questioned the usefulness of this portal and was frustrated by how out-of-date it had become, so I tried to get a few people on board to help update it and although they agreed, nothing was done. Then last year I gave it a revamp, copying what I had seen on another portal. This meant it would not get so out-of-date and would need less updating. The portal is not well promoted, only being linked in articles via Template:EastEnders, and also in category pages, so if page views are a problem this could be something to do with it, as could the fact that it was out-of-date for so long and does not have regular updates. It could be down to the fact that I have a lot less time available for Wikipedia now than I used to and EastEnders articles are severely lacking in dedicated editors. However, I will accept the result of this MFD either way. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 15:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
-
- Do you mean I'm welcome to vote? I know that but actually, I'll leave it to others because I don't have an argument for or against, so I'll just leave you with my statement above. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 17:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you don't vote for its retention then all your efforts will be deleted. Rillington (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- See below. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 12:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep for now, pending a wider consensus on which portals should be kept. The nominator's description of the portal is accurate as far as it goes, but doesn't identify the key issue with this portal, which is @Pldx1's point that it has a tiny range of subtopics.
- In this case, the extra info enhances the case for deletion, but it also enhances the pattern of the nominator making rushed nominations which don't properly examine the portal. How long does it take view the source code and to type Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:EastEnders?
- This portal is not actually broken. Despite its limited scope, the lack of actual brokenness puts it way ahead of most old-style portals. And the limited pageviews are a problem common to nearly all portals.
- The last month of cleanup MFDs has been an important process of getting rid of the recent influx of junk, and some old perma-broken portals. But with that process nearing completion, Legacypac appears to be moving onto MFDing much older, non-broken portals which really fall into the scope of issues which should be decided at RFC. I am also increasingly concerned that despite picking off these portals one at a time, Legacypac's nominations are too often inaccurate and remain uncorrected even when specific inaccuracies are identified, and in most cases they give a grossly inadequate account of the portal. Time for a halt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Doubt is coming to me- When someone saysThere is plenty of Wikipedia coverage
, this is easily parsed as "there is a basis for someone else to do the job", not so convincing. When someone says "I will maintain", the AGF mantra pushes to "OK, let us try" (I am not convinced in advance, but this is another story). Pldx1 (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC) no more doubt now, confirm delete Pldx1 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)- Delete A portal on a single television show, no matter how popular that show, does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, although I said I wouldn't !vote on this, I agree with those who said low page views are a common problem for all portals and I believe there should be a wider consensus on portals in general, like User:BrownHairedGirl suggested. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 12:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Page views are not a deletion rationale. There are a significant number of related articles so this is a good candidate for a portal. Might need some work due to the method of creation, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. WaggersTALK 11:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - The question is not good or bad candidacy, but good or bad navigation tool, since this is the alleged usefulness of a portal. Having only FOUR characters and THREE episodes, after 13 years of existence, and 15 days after this remark has been done, at the beginning of this MfD, is a deletion rationale. While "there are a significant number of keep !voters who will do the job" would be a keep rationale. But there are... none. Pldx1 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - The article has 3113 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 2019, but the portal has 8 daily pageviews, which is less than the average portal at 13 daily pageviews. Pageviews are so a deletion rationale, because the portal guidelines say that portals should be broad subject areas that attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Even if this portal is maintained, it is not being viewed much. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Is it time for a close, or for a Relist? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)