Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:MFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Administrator instructions

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion include:


Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers - sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.
  • Proposed deletion is an option for non-controversial deletions of books (in both User: and Book: namespaces).

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.
Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
If the nomination is for a userbox, please put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the {{mfd}}, as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

or

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

Follow   this edit link   and add a line to the top of the list:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:MFDWarning|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions[edit]

XFD backlog
  Feb Mar Apr May TOTAL
CfD 0 9 28 95 132
TfD 0 0 1 17 18
MfD 0 0 7 18 25
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions[edit]

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

May 27, 2019[edit]

User:Yche3321/OLES2129/Feature Article[edit]

User:Yche3321/OLES2129/Feature Article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Yche33211/draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Yche33211/OLES2129/draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Yche33211/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The original MfD was deleted as G7 after being blanked by the creator, who recreated (substantially identical) drafts in 4 separate locations at around the same time. Since this is a different set of drafts and it was quite late in the MfD, I have renominated them. It is unclear if this is intended to avoid scrutiny, but having multiple copies of the draft can only mean more work. At most, there should be one draft, with the others deleted and redirected. The concerns about tendentious submissions may still apply, though there has been little activity from the user recently. Alpha3031 (tc) 11:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Tamil cinema[edit]

Portal:Tamil cinema (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Abandoned non-portal about Tamil cinema.

Created[1] in April 2014‎ by Visnu92 (talk · contribs).

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

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

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

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

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

  • Delete - Another abandoned underutilized heritage portal. The portal has 8 daily pageviews. The head article has 984 daily pageviews. Is anyone, possibly a Tamil editor, actually planning to provide the effort required for it to be a miniature Main Page? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Super League[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Super League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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

  • Delete - There doesn't seem to be enough history to be worth marking it as historical. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Rock climbing[edit]

Portal:Rock climbing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Created[7] in February 2011‎ by Cj005257 (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I do think that breadth-of-subject-area can be used a the principal factor in in a portal's deletion discussion, since that is a requirement established by the WP:POG guideline, and this portal doe not meet that requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Rhetoric[edit]

Portal:Rhetoric (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Created[11] in January 2006‎ by Mattbarton.exe (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2015, and made only 13 edits after 2006.

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

I doubt that rhetoric is in theory a big enough to satisfy the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice it has not only lacked maintainers, it has lacked anyone willing to do even emergency surgery. And in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 4 pagviews per day.

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

  • Delete - Redlinks that have been redlinks for a very long time indicate that no one is likely to fix anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Organic chemistry[edit]

Portal:Organic chemistry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Created[14] in December 2007 by Chaos (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2017.

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

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

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

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

  • Delete - When I took this course, one of its secondary purposes was for unqualified pre-medical students to fail in their sophomore year,so that they could change majors. This portal seems to have failed. It has 18 daily pageviews, contrasted with 1485 for the main article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Mahayana Buddhism[edit]

Portal:Mahayana Buddhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Created[18] in March 2008 by Emishi (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2012.

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

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

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

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

  • Delete - This portal has daily 11 pageviews. As BHG says, it is a broad area. Not every broad area will attract a portal maintainer. As I noted about Jesus and Christianity, the ability to present a reasonable summary of a religion is likely to require extensive education in the subject. (The more breadth and depth a subject has, the more education is required to be able to distill its knowledge.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Nishapur[edit]

Portal:Nishapur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Created[24] in April 2011‎ by Chyah (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked for sockpuppetry since 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Delete - Another portal by a blocked sockpuppet. I concur with BHG that this is not a broad subject area. The head article has 204 daily page views, which is one of the lowest numbers we have seen for a head article. No point in trying to develop a portal. (My own opinion is that portals should reflect the enthusiasm of the portal maintainer more than the subject, but in this case the specific subject area won't support a portal even with an enthusiastic maintainer.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Kosovo[edit]

Portal:Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Created[27] in January 2008‎ by Prevalis (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Delete - I am not sure why this partially recognized country portal should be deleted with prejudice, but it should be deleted. The portal had 10 daily pageviews in January and February (and 13 daily in 2018). The interest may be there. The head article had 6104 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 2019. But there needs to be a more general discussion of the labor-intensive nature of miniature Main Pages before any of these deleted portals are re-created, as I have tried to address in The Problems with Portals. In the meantime, delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

May 26, 2019[edit]

User:AmigaBot[edit]

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

There seems to be no evidence that such a bot ever existed; the "owner" made few edits, none in mainspace in their brief time using Wikipedia. User:GKFXtalk 22:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Mark as historical for what little history there is. There is no benefit to deleting the user page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Delaware[edit]

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

This US state portal was created in 2007 by two Wikipedia editors, one of whom is now banned, and User:Elpiseos has been inactive since 2013. This is a heritage-style portal with subpages, which require maintenance, but it has not been maintained. Inspection shows that the Selected Article, Selected Biography, and Selected Picture were selected in 2007. There have been minor tweaks, such as the addition of approximately 86 (less than 365) daily history files, but the In The News events are all from the previous decade. Some American editors will say that every US state is a broad subject area and should have a portal, but a portal should have a portal maintainer, and unmaintained portals are litter by the side of the information superhighway. Some editors say that the lack of a portal maintainer should be dealt with by normal editing and tagging. The portal has an average of 12 daily pageviews, as opposed to 2483 for the article. I tagged the portal on 15 May. No one has answered.

Perhaps the advocates of portals will try to call portal maintainers from the vasty deep like spirits by Glendower. As Hotspur replies, will one come? Will he ride heroically back from Philadelphia with Caesar Rodney? Will she swim ashore from the vasty deep in Rehoboth Beach? Will he arrive by a more modern means such as F-16 at Dover AFB? Will it arise like a Frankenstein monster from the laboratories of DuPont in Wilmington?

Analysis of Delaware and Other States[edit]

The following table provides daily pageview statistics for US states and other subnational units. This includes all of the subnational units that have been nominated for deletion, and some US states that have been included for comparison. All of the states included for comparison are relatively small states.

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Notes Percent
Maine 10 2,999 299.9 0.33%
Brittany 9 1,725 191.7 0.52%
Greenland 10 6,632 663.2 0.15%
Azad Kashmir 6 1,657 276.2 The number used is the median. The mean is 4595 due to a weird spike on 26 Feb. 0.36%
Chechnya 10 3,014 301.4 0.33%
Faisalbad 2 442 221.0 0.45%
Silesia 9 896 99.6 1.00%
Kashmir 15 2,349 156.6 Median listed, mean is 6162, weird peak on 27 Feb 0.64%
Bavaria 11 2,799 254.5 Not currently nominated. 0.39%
Micronesia 14 1,469 104.9 0.95%
French Polynesia 3 2,095 698.3 0.14%
Republika Srpska 3 1,039 346.3 Originator blocked as a sock. 0.29%
Delaware 12 2,483 206.9 Originator banned. Selected pages same as in 2007. 0.48%
Maryland 15 3,315 221.0 Originator inactive since 2016. 0.45%
New Jersey 20 4,159 208.0 0.48%
Rhode Island 12 2,760 230.0 0.43%
Connecticut 16 3,109 194.3 Being reworked by MJL. 0.51%
Hawaii 20 8,490 424.5 Originator inactive since 2007. 0.24%

Subnational entities never have more than approximately 1% of the pageviews of the head article, and never have as many as 40 daily pageviews. (They never have more than 20, but that may change if the table is expanded.)

Further Discussion of Delaware[edit]

add keep/delete/comments below this line

  • Delete - I recommend that this MFD be left open for at least three weeks (but MFDs are often open that long anyway) to see if a portal maintainer will volunteer. If none is found, I recommend that it be Deleted without prejudice to a new portal with whatever portal design is appropriate under whatever portal guidelines are in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Regarding page views, there are less than 250 links to the portal in article namespace. More visible links to the portal on article pages equates to higher page views, and a lesser amount of visible links equates to lesser views. North America1000 21:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps I don't understand. Are those links from article space to portal space, or from portal space to article space? Why should articles link to portal space? And what conclusion can be drawn, or what should be done? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

May 20, 2019[edit]

Smaller city portals[edit]

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

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

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

Getting faster

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

The singularity is just around the corner. :)

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

Portal:Córdoba, Argentina[edit]

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

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

Created[32] in October 2012‎ by Cambalachero (talk · contribs).

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Córdoba, Argentina has a modest set of sub-pages:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 65 consecutive updates.

In theory, Córdoba, Argentina could be seen as a broad topic. However it has only about 1.3 million inhabitants, and is not a national capital. So in practice it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals– should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". It has consistently failed to attract maintainers, and since Argentina is not an English-speaking country, it is unlikely to.

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

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

Portal:Bahá'í Faith[edit]

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

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

Created[40] in December 2005‎ by LatinoMuslim (talk · contribs), who last edited in early 2018.

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

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 160 consecutive updates.

In theory, the Bahá'í Faith coukd be seen as a broad topic. However it has only 5–8 million adherents, which quite small, and in prcatice it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals– should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 10 pageviews per day, which is less than the abysmal the median of 13 per day for all portals, but still only 0.23% of the 4,132 daily views of the head article. And it has consistently failed to attract maintainers.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the featured-class head article Bahá'í Faith and its navbox Template:Bahá'í plus sidebar Template:Bahá'í sidebar.

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

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

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

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

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Confucianism[edit]

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

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

Created[45] in December 2005‎ by LatinoMuslim (talk · contribs), who last edited in early 2018.

It escaped the 2018 rush to automation. But the list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Confucianism shows just a set of static pages, many of which were reworked in 2014 by Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked[46] ("AE") since June 2018 for sockpuppetry (see SPI)

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 60 consecutive updates, and over 150 updates in all.

In theory, this a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 11 pageviews per day, which is less than the abysmal the median of 13 per day for all portals, but still well under 0.5% of the 2,321 daily views of the head article. And it has consistently failed to attract maintainers.

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

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

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

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

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

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Portal:Cotton[edit]

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

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

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

Portal:Taoism[edit]

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

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

Created[54] in December 2005‎ by LatinoMuslim (talk · contribs), who last edited in early 2018.

It escaped the 2018 rush to automation. But the list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Taoism shows just a set of static pages, many of which were reworked in 2014 by Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked[55] ("AE") since June 2018 for sockpuppetry (see SPI)

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 60 consecutive updates, and over 150 updates in all.

In theory, this a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 28 pageviews per day, which is twice the median of 13 per day for all portals, but still well under 1% of the 3,264 daily views of the head article. And it has consistently failed to attract maintainers.

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

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

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

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

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

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Smaller city portals[edit]

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

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

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

Getting faster

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

The singularity is just around the corner. :)

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

Portal:UK railways[edit]

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

Misconceived mini-portal abandoned for about 10 years.

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

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

So the substantive articles are:

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

Created[65] in October 2006‎ by Nick (talk · contribs).

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

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

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

Portal:Origami[edit]

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

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

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

Portal:Azad Kashmir[edit]

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

Abandoned unmaintained regional portal, but with a twist!

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

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

This subject is under authorized Arbitration Committee Discretionary sanctions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Portal:Scientology[edit]

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

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

  • Delete - I don't want to argue about breadth-of-subject-area because I think that breadth-of-subject-area is a distraction that leads us astray like a will-o-the-wisp. I also don't want to argue that a consensus has been established that portals that are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions should be deleted, but I will argue again that such portals should be deleted. The portal has an average of 21 daily pageviews. The head article has 7779 average daily pageviews, and the Church of Scientology has 2328 daily pageviews, so the portal provides no service. I don't think that anyone can be knowledgeable about Scientology and neutral about it, so the four choices are to have the portal unmaintained, have the portal maintained by a Scientologist, have the portal maintained by an opponent of Scientology, or delete the portal. The second and third options are nothing but conflict-magnets and sanction-magnets. Delete it, with prejudice, that is, without leaving open the option of a new version of the portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Not a comment on the merits of keeping or deleting this portal, but by your logic, "I don't think that anyone can be knowledgeable about Scientology and neutral about it" and your implied opposition to the "conflict-magnet" scenario of the portal being managed by someone a person with firm views on the matter, how is it we have an article on the Church of Scientology in the first place? 'Tis a conflict magnet for sure, but that does not mean it should be deleted. Are you saying that the portal is just an unnecessary source of drama? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Indy beetle - The difference is that a portal has a portal maintainer, and an article does not have an article owner. Articles reflect neutral point of view, and dispute resolution is designed to maintain neutral point of view. Articles in contentious areas are POV-magnets but are necessary, and procedures including discretionary sanctions minimize and contain conflict. Portals in contentious areas are POV-magnets and are unnecessary. It is simpler and easier not to have a portal than to have conflict over the portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Plentiful articles here already, portal not needed. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Narrow topic, POV magnet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sarawak[edit]

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

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

Created[70] in July 2013‎ by Omdo (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked since the end of July 2013.[71]

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

In August 2018 it was converted[72] by @The Transhumanist (TTH) into an automated portal, drawing its list of "selected articles" solely from the navbox {{Sarawak}}, and its images solely from the head article Sarawak.

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

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

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

In theory, this state of 2.6 million people might be seen as a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers for 6 years, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 2 pageviews per day.

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

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and find a team of editors to maintain it ... so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Portal:Sabah[edit]

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

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

Created[73] in April 2014‎ by Muffin Wizard (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in late 2015.

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

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

In theory, this state of 3.5 million people might be seen as a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 6 pageviews per day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Portal:Romani people[edit]

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

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

Created[75] in June 2007‎ by Ronline (talk · contribs), and didn't touch this portal after the day it was created.[76], and last edited in 2013.

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

In theory, this a broad topic. But in practice, it doesn't meet the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 9 pageviews per day

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

I am unsure how boroad thsi topic is, so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Portal:Transnational child protection[edit]

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

Very narrow topic. Abandoned since 2016.

Created[80] in March 2016‎ by Hipersons (talk · contribs),who lasted edited in late 2016. The disclosures at User:Hipersons asserts exertise in the field.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PS See the note at Portal:Transnational child protection/About this portal's team: "This portal, along with relevant newly created or expanded articles, was initiated by a consortium of experts who assigned one person to execute the work. The planning, writing, editing and execution was partially funded by the European Commission's Return Fund. Further funding is being sought to expand the scope, further improve existing pages, and train a small community of experts in how to help build the portal.
    Any bias towards the European situation is unintentional. All efforts to ensure the global situation is represented are warmly encouraged."
Given the lack of development, it would appear that the plans did not materialise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete because this is a strange case in terms of pageview metrics. The portal is the primary means by which the small number of readers read about the subject. The head article has 4 daily pageviews. The portal has 5 daily pageviews. What was really needed was the navbox that User:BrownHairedGirl has supplied. This is a case where the task force started out to do a job and didn't finish the job. The portal doesn't do any harm, but the navbox does the same functions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)





May 25, 2019[edit]

Portal:Number theory[edit]

Portal:Number theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned mini-portal.

Created[89] in April 2008‎ by Cenarium (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2017, and whose last edit to this portal was in August 2008. The lead of WP:POG has said since 2006 "Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance", and this one has not been maintained.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Number theory shows only 6 subpages with content:

WP:POG requires that portals be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"'. This one has attracted no maintainers, and while it's 23 daily pgeviews in Jan–Feb 2019, which is 2½ times the abysmal median of 13 for all portals, but still onlt yy% of the 1093 daily views for the head article Number theory.

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 Number theory and its navbox Template:Number theory.

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

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

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

So this portal is just complex way to give the reader an outdated excerpt of the lead of one article outa possible 6 ... when previews of a much wider set are built into the head article.

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 11-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) 23:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I've corrected some editorial errors in the nom. DexDor (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Concur with the analysis by BHG. Number theory is a very slowly evolving field, so that it doesn't change very often, but that makes it more important that the portal reflect any actual events such as the proof of theorems. The nature of the discipline changes the need for maintenance, but does not eliminate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 19 subpages, created 2008-04-11 21:18:25 by User:Cenarium. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Number theory. Pldx1 (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Honker house family reunion[edit]

Draft:Honker house family reunion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Roger Harrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The first of these 2 pages, Draft:Honker house family reunion is misuse of Wikipedia as a web host, and would be U5 eligible in userspace. The second, Draft:Roger Harrison is an apparent BLP that contains lots of questionable statements, and is improperly sourced.

These 2 pages were created by the same user, Draco magus, whose only other edits have been talking about Harrison on their user talk page, and creating their user page with the words "Waldo Rabbit". CoolSkittle (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete Draft:Honker house family reunion as What Wikipedia is not and as a non-notable event. It looks like an original work of fiction due to the script layout but I can't seem to find a copyvio in it so no G12.
SITH (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Ankara[edit]

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

Abandoned mini-portal on the Turkish capital city of Ankara. Same set of only 6 articles since 2015.

Created[90] in January 2015‎ by Lubunya (talk · contribs), whose last edit to this portal was 3 days later[91]. 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.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Ankara shows a modest set of sub-pages, including:

In theory, this major city a broad topic. But in practice, like most city portals, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 3 pageviews per day, which is barely above the background noise of views by Wikipedia editors. It's less than a quarter of the abysmal median of 13 per day for all portals, but still well under 0.5% of the 1,202 daily views of the head article. And for 4 years it has consistently failed to attract maintainers, which is why it languishes with a miserable set of only 6 topics.

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 Ankara and its excellent navbox Template:Ankara.

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

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

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

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

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 27 subpages, created 2015-01-08 12:15:21 by User:Lubunya. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Ankara. Pldx1 (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per analysis by BHG. The idea that a big city or a capital city is a "broad subject area" may seem plausible a priori, but it has been seen a posteriori that they don't attract large numbers of readers or portal maintainers. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Abandoned? Check. Of questionable scope? Check. SITH (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Fiction[edit]

Portal:Fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Created[92] in September 2018‎ by @The Transhumanist (TTH), aka the portalspammer, who at the end of 2018 boasted We were racing against time to create 5,000 portals by the end of the year (just for the heck of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Delete - So what was the portal platoon trying to accomplish with the push past five thousand to ten thousand if portals were becoming obsolete? (Maybe they didn't know about the new features? Maybe they didn't know about links and categories? The last can't be, because they sometimes used categories to scrape portals together.) The portal has 15 daily pageviews. The head article has 891 page views, but that doesn't count the views of the child articles that were used to automate this golem. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Automated portal, 1 subpages, created 2018-09-15 05:51:39 by User:TTH, useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality: Portal:Fiction. Pldx1 (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: meets the usual criteria: auto-created, auto-abandoned, poorly-constructed and totally useless. Also, per overwhelming consensus from the two mass nominations.

SITH (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Las Vegas[edit]

Portal:Las Vegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Created[93] in January 2006‎ by Texaswebscout (talk · contribs).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Delete - I don't know whether this is a broad subject area; I don't know whether every large city is a broad subject area. Perhaps the portal and the article, like the city, are primarily tourist destinations. However, the portal has 12 daily pageviews, as opposed to 4574 for the head article. The features described by BHG provide much of the functionality that a portal is intended to provide, and the portal isn't being used much. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 16 subpages, created 2006-01-12 04:46:55 by User:Texaswebscout. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Las Vegas. Pldx1 (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: abandoned portals do not fulfil the portal criteria for inclusion. SITH (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Electronic music[edit]

Portal:Electronic music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Created[98] in August 2006‎ by MTN~enwiki (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Delete - I don't consider this a broad subject area in itself, but I think that BHG may be making that concession pro argumento anyway. This is a yet another unmainatained heritage portal, with 20 daily pageviews, as opposed to 1275 daily pageviews for the head article. The portal has just been sitting here doing nothing for years. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 15 subpages, created 2006-08-05 06:59:43 by User:MTN~enwiki. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Electronic music. Pldx1 (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: abandoned portals don't fulfil the stated purpose of portals. SITH (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Time[edit]

Portal:Time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Created[104] in March 2007‎ by Vigeesh (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Delete - This portal and Portal:Chronology largely overlap, but neither of them has attracted readers, although the topics have. This portal has had 45 daily pageviews (although some of that has been due to vandalism), and the head article has had 2616 daily pageviews. This portal is not being maintained. (The fact that it has been vandalized repeatedly is not a reason to Keep or Delete, only to watch it and to revert it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 58 subpages, created 2007-03-30 15:51:12 by User:Vigeesh. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Time. Pldx1 (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Srleffler (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: unmaintained, questionable scope, forks navboxes. SITH (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Chronology[edit]

Portal:Chronology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Mini-portal abandoned since 2013.

Created[107] in August 2008‎ by Vanisheduser12345 (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Delete - As BHG says. This portal has had 15 daily pageviews, while the article Chronology has had 470 daily pageviews, but that isn't a useful comparison because many of the actual views have been of topics that were found by links or categories. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 40 subpages, created 2008-08-19 13:29:58 by User:Vanisheduser12345. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Chronology. Pldx1 (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet the breadth-of-subject-matter requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: questionable scope as is, unmaintained, navboxes suffice. SITH (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Country music[edit]

Portal:Country music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Created[112]] in 2010 by Moxy (talk · contribs), who also created the sub-pages.

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

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

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

Yes, this is theory a broad topic. Wikipedia has extensive coverage of the artists, genres, albums, songs and awards. But WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and this has not attracted maintainers. The creator @Moxy is not maintaining it[116].

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

  • Delete - As usual, the topic is popular, but not the portal. We are looking at 2,170 daily page views for the head article, and that doesn't count views made directly of articles about individual artists or groups, songs or albums, sub-genres, et cetera. We are looking at 12 daily page views for the portal, and the reason that doesn't count the subportals is that there aren't any subportals. The portal hasn't been maintained and so isn't providing a service to the readers, who are doing fine with articles, categories, links, and articles. If someone wants to develop a portal as a hobby, they are welcome to do so, but it isn't something that the readers need as a service. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 13 subpages, created 2007-10-15 04:32:55 by User:Audacity. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Country music. Pldx1 (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: abandoned, does not fulfil purpose of mini Main Page per WP:PORTAL. SITH (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

May 24, 2019[edit]

User:Jackmarshall052104/Sandbox[edit]

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

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

  • Delete - Nonsense by this editor has already been deleted once at this forum. Looking over the editor's history, the next stop is probably Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: I thought the point of letting people run their own MediaWiki installations was so they could keep their cack off Wikipedia. Clearly I was wrong. SITH (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Adele[edit]

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

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

This is portal was created in 2016 by MaranoFan until it was upgraded by TTH on 8 September 2018‎ to basically its current semi-automated state. Before that, Dreamy Jazz did do some substantial restructuring of the portal [117]. That version looks pretty nice tbh, but it has some significant quirks that I won't get into.

The portal uses (among other things):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

  • Comment. I have notified all editors who participated in the previous discussion using this talk page notice. I did this to help the discussion gets as much participation from previous editors as possible to ensure a proper consensus is reached. –MJLTalk 21:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry to beat the same drum yet again but please stop using WP:REDUNDANTFORK, which is explicitly specific to articles, as a rationale for deleting portals. Every portal repeats article content; that's their purpose. Certes (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentWP:REDUNDANTFORK and the entire Wikipedia:Content forking page was written specifically in regards to articles only, and states nothing about Portal namespace content. Fact is, there is nothing about portals on the page at all; even the word "portal" is not present. Conversely, the word "article" is used 100 times throughout the page (as of this post, link). Ultimately, the use of Redundant fork toward Portal namespace content is a slippery slope and overextension of the Content forking guideline page, as well as the intent of the page when it was written; it's about articles. North America1000 00:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Northamerica1000 and Certes: You're points are well taken. To avoid getting into the arguement for the 100th time, I've just replaced the words WP:REDUNDANTFORK with terrible off-brand clone. I don't agree we should apply that guideline so narrowly because I believe in a form of loose constructionism for interpreting these things, but that really is neither here nor there. The sentiment is there that these off-brand clones aren't needed no matter what people want to call them. –MJLTalk 02:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @MJL, it's a sad indication of the dire state of the portals project that two of its leading members — Northamerica1000 & Certes — pitch up at this MFD to quibble about against a broad interpretation of a policy rather than to uphold the clear community consensus against portals cloned from a single navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, I resigned membership in the project some time ago, in part due to the sad, unnecessary negative typecasting and stereotyping of project members that has been occurring in various areas during these ongoing discussions. Furthermore, the WikiProject should not be blamed for any and all matters regarding all portals that may arise, which is very overreaching. North America1000 09:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I also removed my name several months ago. Another editor has likened the WikiProject's current situation to a Republican running a Democrats' congress. Certes (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - See analysis of Music Portals (esp. by Moxy) showing that article has 7,403 daily page views but portal has 14 daily page views. The portal is not attracting large numbers of readers, or a portal maintainer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. A single performer is a narrow topic, and for even for a broad topic this type of portal is useless.
It is just a pointless clone which draws its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox Template:Adele, or which it is therefore just a bloated and redundant fork. Broad community consensus to delete this type of portal is well-established: see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals.
Since the mass deletions, I have become more aware of the significance of two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Adele, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Adele, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow.
This pseudo-portal draws the list of images for its image slideshow solely from the head article Adele. So it's completely redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Automated portal, 23 subpages, created 2016-01-03 13:40:14 by User:MaranoFan, useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality. Nothing to keep. Portal:Adele. Pldx1 (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Now please stop tagging me here and continually notifying me about this discussion on my talk page. It will be appreciated!—NØ 09:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per BHG. Those two features break the point of this portal completely. I have always been a little leery of projects and portals devoted to individuals or other small topics. The problem is not that these things are evil or terrible in their own right. The problem is that we have so many of these unmaintained portals, and they regularly fall behind other navigation tools which are actively maintained (categories and so on). Even worse, many unmaintained portals pretend to be maintained by using some automation. An unmaintained page can be a target for any form of vandalism or bad behavior, or accidents of automation. They can also just look bad. If they were very useful to readers, that might be worth risking. But portals like this one are so narrow that I interpret them as toeing the line of violating WP:POG's narrowness clause outright. I am always stunned at how much deliberation has been done on portals and yet, WP:POG is such a short article with vague rules. Whatever the reason, it leaves it up to us to look at each portal and make our decision. I find the use of POG in the last MfD to be spurious--there is no clear definition of what to consider as meeting the conditions listed in POG. So I'm not basing my vote totally on that. I'm basing it on the health of Wikipedia. This portal is a door which goes nowhere useful, but which may be exploited by vandals nonetheless. Let's delete it. Prometheus720 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. It redundantly forks several navboxes.
  2. An individual person is very rarely a broad topic.
SITH (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sonic the Hedgehog[edit]

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

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

Created[118] in November 2006‎ by DarknessLord (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2008. Unmaintained since then.

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

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Sonic the Hedgehog and its navbox. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", but this has bot been maintained.

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

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

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

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

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 31 subpages, created 2006-11-23 19:13:46 by User:DarknessLord. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Sonic the Hedgehog. Pldx1 (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - - As per nominator. Portal has 6 daily pageviews as compared to 1840 for article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikia is the place to go for in-depth coverage of esoteric subjects. POG failure due to scope and PORTAL failure due to abandonment. SITH (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Republika Srpska[edit]

Portal:Republika Srpska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Convenience link: subject article is Republika Srpska)

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

  • Delete per nominator. I had checked it out, ad it was on my to-do list. Narrow scope, and abandoned. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, should be covered by Portal:B&H. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 24 subpages, created 2015-02-19 16:48:00 by User:AnulBanul. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Republika_Srpska/ show that this draft never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Republika Srpska. Pldx1 (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - This portal has only 3 daily pageviews, as opposed to the article at 1039 daily pageviews. The originator of this portal has been blocked as a sock and so is unlikely to maintain it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: unmaintained, unused, too narrow scope. SITH (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Transgender[edit]

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

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

Section Contents Last add of content
Introduction The same of the article Transgender.
Selected article 13 articles (9 already listed in the article Transgender) 2009‎
Random quote 9 quotes 2014
Selected picture 2 pictures + transclude files of Transgender, Transfeminism and Transgender Day of Remembrance 2019
Did you know 3 DYK 2009
Selected biography 4 articles (one already listed in the article Transgender) 2009‎
Topic From Portal:Transgender/Topics 2018
Categories categorytree of Category:Transgender
  • Comment I would like to point out that the subject is not addressed in Portal:Human sexuality. Sexuality =/= Gender. I'll review this nomination in a bit, though. –MJLTalk 15:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The portal has 58 daily pageviews, which is high compared to other portals, but the article has 5527 daily pageviews. The originator has been inactive since 2013. Unmaintained portals are a form of litter by the side of the information superhighway. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: is this portal any better or worse than the average portal? Last year there was an RfC on whether the portal system should end, with the nominator arguing that portals in general were unpopular with both editors and readers. The result was a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    @WanderingWanda: I'm pretty sure if there was an absolute average portal, this one would it. It's why I am rather neutral. However, I can confidently assure you that Portal:LGBT is much better than the average portal. If there was one I'd have to recommend people put their focus on out of the two, it would be the latter. –MJLTalk 03:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Lean Keep: I've been familiarizing myself with wikipedia portals and have just begun updating this one. Since lack of maintenance seems to be a main concern, hopefully I am helping on that front. As or any of the portals above making this one unnecessary, they all don't seem to cover that much on transgender topics on their pages and subportals seem to already be a norm from a glance at the list of portals. Rab V (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - A rare event occurred ! A keep !voter doing the maintenance work !!! So many people should take example ! Moreover, User:Rab V could fill the maintainer= field, to assert that this portal is maintained. Side remark: 58 page views per day is an extraordinary high score for a portal. Portal:Donald Trump is not far better with 59 page views par day. Pldx1 (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: if this is getting 58 pageviews a day when it hasn't even been being maintained, and someone has just recently set about maintaining it, perhaps we should put off deleting it for a month or two and see how things look after maintenance. I don't personally see much benefit to portals in general, and I'm not sure how often they should be updated (more than "once since 2009", yes, but I'm guessing not "daily" if even "popularly viewed" ones only get ~60 pageviews a day. monthly?), but I'd be willing to help e.g. supply some candidates for "Did you know?" (e.g., Jennie June could furnish one or more). And we have a lot more biographies to pick from by now for the featured bio section (e.g., Nicole Maines, or indeed the aforementioned Jennie June, and more if this portal is intended to also cover non-binary people). -sche (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    Update: I updated the DYKs (1, 2, 3) with new hooks; the first one or two on each page are from the main-page DYK archive and the others are new: if it is still strictly necessary for hooks to first appear on the main page, let me know and I will see about submitting them and looking for other mainpage-featured hooks in the meantime. -sche (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per -sche, and because the area of trans and non-binary topics is large enough to merit a portal separate from LGBT. I am not familiar with portal maintenance, but have been active on editing trans and non-binary articles (and images), so could learn and pitch in to help keep this current. Funcrunch (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral to keeping the portal with the condition that it be eligible for renomination in 60 days if it is not being maintained as agreed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I'll throw in my !vote here. If it seems like we have some support for maintaining this, then I think this could be a net benefit to the project. Face-smile.svgMJLTalk 02:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: glad to see the can-do attitude of the fixes after the nomination. Of course, per Robert, portals do need ongoing maintenance, but right now, it's wide enough in scope, it has an active maintainer and it doesn't just fork navboxes. SITH (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Osaka[edit]

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

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

Created[119] in May 2006‎ by KGF~enwiki (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2010.

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

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

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

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

Maybe a miracle will happen, and some team of editors will appear to build and maintain an Osaka portal which actually adds value for readers. So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. But since most city portals outside the USA are neglected, the chances of any replacement being maintained are slim ... so I won't oppose outright deletion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete:
  1. Portals require active maintenance to fulfil their purpose.
  2. While this topic could be broad enough, its selection is not.
SITH (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per analysis by BHG. As stated, city portals get less than 1% of the pageviews of the head article. They are also often abandoned, as this one has been. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 17 subpages, created 2006-05-06 07:34:35 by User:KGF~enwiki. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Osaka. Pldx1 (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Gaelic games[edit]

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

Created[120] in May 2013 by an IP, abandoned since June 2013.

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

In theory, this a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But it has had no maintainers since the IP moved on in June 2013, and it gets few viewers. In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 6 pageviews per day, which is less half than the abysmal median of 13 per day for all portals, and ony 6%% of the 103 daily views of the head article..

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

Maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: not actively curated and doesn't cast a wide enough net, although the topic could. SITH (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I concur with the analysis by BHG. This portal has a strange history in that it was created as a draft by an IP editor and moved to portal space from AFC. A future editor who is interested in Wikipedia coverage of the Gaelic games would do better to work on the head article, which is only at 103 pageviews. Therefore my recommendation is Just Delete It. If the head article is improved and then another editor wants to create a portal, they know where Deletion Review is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Abandoned portal, 37 subpages, created 2013-05-16 04:07:12 by User:86.40.97.52. No more alive. Nothing to keep (too outdated). Portal:Gaelic games. Pldx1 (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Futurama[edit]

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

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

Created[122] in January 2006‎ by WXYZ~enwiki (talk · contribs), but the construction seems to have been shared with Trisreed (talk · contribs).

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

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

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

  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 14 subpages, created 2006-01-11 20:27:03 by User:WXYZ~enwiki. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Futurama. Pldx1 (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Tibetan Buddhism[edit]

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

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

Created[127] in January 2006‎ by Sylvain1972 (talk · contribs).

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

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

There is a theoretical case for arguing that this is a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". It has consistently failed to attract maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 11 pageviews per day, which is less than the abysmal median of 13 per day for all portals, and only 1.3% of the 779 daily views of the head article.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Tibetan Buddhism and its sidebar Template:Tibetan Buddhism sidebar and navbox Template:TibetanBuddhism.

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

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

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

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

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: in theory the scope is wide enough, in practice it isn't, which is compounded by the lack of updates which make the portal fail its purpose. SITH (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Concur with analysis by BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 25 subpages, created 2006-01-20 19:53:59 by User:Sylvain1972. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Tibetan Buddhism. Pldx1 (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Donald Trump[edit]

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

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

  • Question - Is this a coded portal or a single-page portal? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - How is this a POV fork? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • How is this a POV fork?
Well, it obviously is a fork of other Wikipedia pages.
Why POV? Why is it not WP:NPOV compliant? Because it is Wikipedia-editorialisation. The presentation is not external-source based. It gives WP:UNDUE visibility to what Wikipedians think is important. While the forking of the parent article lede, as tranclusions is fine, what follows is not bias-free. What struck me to start with is the listing of Good Articles. Taking a wide-eyed reader perspective, going below the fold, and there is a list Good Article dot points: Crippled America; Impeachment March, Insane Clown President. This listing is out of context, is not reflective of NPOV rules as applied to articles. It instead reflects what Wikipedians think worthy to work on to elevate to Good Article status, it is Wikipedian biased. This is inherently a problem, subject to biases, and unconnected to sourcing as the basis of WP:DUE. If this were intended for editor consumption, it would be ok, but it is not, it is intended for readers.
It is a poor excuse that no real readers read it. What value it has for editors should be moved to WikiProjects, and value there is for readers should be at the parent article. Navigation from the parent article via wikilinking, navigation templates, and the category system, is structurally rigorous, unlike the structure of a portal that reflects editor bias. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    • To clarify after talking to BHG, the POVFORK, NPOV failure argument does not imply any POV pushing or lack of the best good faith by anyone. I see it as deriving entirely from unconscious bias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Deferring !vote for more information from other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is better than many/most portals - although still having minor faults (e.g. displaying "{{{1}}}" and currently for me displaying two photos of the same thing next to each other). I'm not convinced the portal (currently) has a POV problem (e.g. it currently includes "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency."). The quotes may (I haven't checked) all be quotes by, rather than about, Trump but that may be what any readers of the portal would expect. I think a case could be made to delete all single-person portals (especially for recent/living people), but this MFD nom isn't convincing. DexDor (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This portal shares the basic flaw of most old-style (pre-automated) portals, viz. that it forks the MOS:LEAD of Wikipedia articles to a set of subpages of the portal: Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Donald Trump. Those subpages are unreferenced and under-scrutinised.
The subpages system was set up in good faith as way of building portals, and in most cases it seems that in practice the only significant problems relate to maintenance, as the snippets in the subpages tend to ossify.
However, cases like this illustrate how a portal could be used for POV-pushing purposes, both in the selection of topics and in the wording of the subpages. If a miscreant chose to target the head article Donald Trump, that page has 2600 watchers who will soon revert; but while Portal:Donald Trump doesn't show a count of watchers, the page stats show only 56 editors having edited the page, which is probably similar to the number of watchers. Meanwhile the subpage Portal:Donald Trump/Selected article/1 has been edited by only one editor, so any miscreant wanting to use the portal as an attack vector would likely be undetected if they chose that path.
In Jan–Feb 2019, the portal got only 59 pageviews per day, so there can't be many editors monitoring its output.
It is possible to reduce the vulnerability by automating the creation of excerpts, thereby making subpages redundant and I will now do a demo of that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Article subpages bypassed, in this edit[132]. However, that leaves the 14 selected quote pages, the 7 selected picture pages, and the 4 "Did you know" pages as vulnerabilities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – Trump qualifies for a portal as per meeting Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines: enough content available about the subject, a broad topic relative to the significance of the subject, and a decent amount of Recognized content. How is this a POV-fork? The content in the portal is rather neutral, and does not come across as hand-picked to present a particular point-of-view. The portal provides an objective overview of the subject and present POTUS. Concerns about page views can be alleviated by adding links to the portal to various related articles, templates and category pages. More links = more visibility, which directly equates to more page views. North America1000 11:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The Portal Guidelines have been characterised as having pariah status. They are a set of instructions for what Portal advocates want to do, and they do not reflect or advance Wikipedia objectives. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This portal looks good and has been improved to address the criticism made in the nomination. (Further comment withdrawn after noticing that the nominator's criticisms were directed at an old version of the portal.) Certes (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Certes: my tweak addressed only part of the vulnerability. As noted above, the 14 selected quote pages, the 7 selected picture pages, and the 4 "Did you know" pages remain as unsourced an probably unwatched pages, vulnerable to attack; and the portal itself is so little watched that a stealthy addition of an inappropriate item to the list of selected articles might go undetected for some time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
      • As with most portals and some other derived content, there are a couple of dilemmas. Do you automate DYK/ITN, or leave a manually created version to rot? Do you worry that a page is likely to deteriorate because no one looks at it, or decide not to worry because no one looks at it? There is a case for "might get vandalised later" becoming a valid deletion rationale, but if so then we should consider an RfC on mass-deleting little-watched pages from all namespaces. Or just pre-emptively protect high-risk pages. Certes (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Certes, you seem to be assuming that the choices are either automation or let it rot. Which is interesting, because as you know WP:POG says that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". However, this one attracts neither viewers nor -- as you acknowledge -- enough maintainers to avoid the expectation that it will rot.
So basically you are telling us that the available options if we keep the page are both poor, and that we may need to revise protection policy. So you have persuaded me to choose a better option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: You're undoubtedly far more expert than I on protection policy, but with regard to BLPs, I would be prepared to IAR preemptive protection of little-watched subpages on a polarising BLP if that proved necessary. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The main Trump portal page gets about 50 edits a year and, of course, also changes when transcluded pages are edited. The nominator considers that level of activity as Barely viewed, which I can't really argue with as it's an opinion rather than a fact, so I'm simply commenting on that basis. Certes (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict, preemptive protection of little-watched subpages on a polarising BLP if that proved necessary???? If proven necessary, it's not pre-emptive. And once the subpages are protected, maintenance will become even harder.
@Certes, my comment barely viewed is not an opinion, it is a fact. One view of the portal for every 839 views of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, a valid interpretation of "barely viewed" would be the absolute number of hits, rather than the relative, imo. And maintenance isn't necessarily needed for (1) pages that extract from a dynamic source; (2) images that continue show that they showed; (3) quotations that the subject said and can't retract that fact; (4) main-page DYKs that ran and aren't date sensitive. In this case I doubt getting an admin maintainer would be too tricky. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
If you want to do absolute number of views, I went too look for some obscure topic in upstate NY. I thought I'd look at a ridge on the Erie Canal, but didn't find any, so I took the first school I found: D'Youville College in Buffalo, with 51 pageviews/day. The portal barely exceeds that obscure school.
Some maintenance is needed on subpages, as comments become outdated. And a watching eye is need for vandalism.
The head article is so heavily watched that that it subject to disputes and sanctions; meanwhile with the portal, all we have is an observation that a maintainer would need to be actively recruited ... which just reinforces my point about the POG guidance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For an example of a portal subpage with lots (at least relative to the number of constructive edits) of vandalism see Portal:Physics/Intro. DexDor (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've had a couple of discussions where I essentially challenged editors to bring Portal:Donald Trump to MfD; I didn't expect to be taken up on it. Does it meet the current guidelines: clearly yes. The problem with PoV is true for all polarising political figures, but is particularly difficult where the subject is living and doubly so when they are in office and when elections are upcoming. If stealth vandalism is an issue, could we edit-lock the subpage