The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete. — xaosfluxTalk 14:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5 pages in the category. The selected "bio" is a DAB page. Old portal but junk and seemingly narrow topic (or so poorly presented it looks narrow) Legacypac (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to keep. @Legacypac's description does not seem to be an accurate representation of the portal. It actually has three separate article lists, of 21 articles, 44 articles, and 17 articles.
I don't know what Legacypac's 5 pages in the category refers to, but Category:Tamil history seems to show a lot of content. I haven't investigated how much of that is "ancient", but it seems that the nominator also didn't do much investigation before proposing deletion, which per WP:BEFORE they should do. For example Category:Chola dynasty seems to be ancient, and there are 51 pages in that category alone. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Category listed on the portal under Category is Category:Sangam period which has 5 pages in it and no subcategories. How should I know what other possible category about some other random topic someone could have built this portal on? In mainspace the title Ancient Tamil civilization is a redirect to Sangam period so that looks like the correct category for this portal title. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac, How should you know? By the cunning magic of clicking the edit button and looking at the source code of the portal to see how it is actually built.
That should be routine practice before proposing the deletion of any portal, and I am alarmed that your reply suggests you do not do so before every MFD nomination. I have done this with every portal which I have taken to MFD, except for the mass nominations where I used a series of tools to examine the code automatically and verified samples. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even when you are wrong - by failing to look at the category listed as the category on the page - you still find it in you to treat me like I'm some sort of idiot that does not know where the edit button is. Go away you troll. Legacypac (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac, no I am not wrong. You looked at only one element of the portal, and on that basis you made a nomination which grossly misrepresents the nature of the portal.
I don't care who makes the nomination. If it is a misleading nomination I will point that out, regardless of who made it. And if it is severe misrepesentation, I will say so, regardless of who made it. So no, I will not go away ... and I ask you retract that allegation that I am a troll. You have made that personal attack before, and I have had enough.
Most times, when I identify a problem like that, editors are grateful and correct their error, because they actually want their assessment to be accurate. But you repeatedly treat every correction as a personal attack, and leave errors uncorrected, even when it derails the whole discussion. One of the key signs of an editor who is working good faith is that they correct their errors, but I repeatedly see you failing to do that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No you continue to troll me and it needs to stop. You started with "I don't know what Legacypac's 5 pages in the category refers to." I showed you the obvious answer from the face of the portal and you still say I'm wrong. Seriously stop trolling. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, @Legacypac. You quite spectacularly don't get the problem. You didn't identify which category you were talking about, so I queried that. You looked at the category which matches the head article, which is way narrower in scope than the portals' title, which was what I looked for. That's why I linked the categories I had examined, and queried what category you had used. Neither of us was wrong about that; we were both legitimately looking at difft things. The confusion could all have been avoided if you had simply linked the category whose content you were counting, esp since its title is radically different to the page title.
The rest of your nomination is where the problem remains. Your description of the portal as junk and seemingly narrow topic is simply wrong. You didn't bother to check the actual scope, you still don't see the relevance of the fact that you didn't bother to do the basic check which would have shown you that the portal has 82 pages in its selection. Worst of all, you still take it all not just as personal attack, but as trolling.
For me, this is the final straw in your long history of treating multiple XFD venues as goal-focused battlefields rather than as a collective effort to establish facts and build a consensus. That's all I will say in this venue. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No you missed the obvious - the category right on the face of the page - and attacked me like I pulled it from thin air. I don't swear but if I did I would use unkind words for your constant badgering and assumptions of bad faith against a dedicated editor. There are words for people like you. Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I actually wrote was I don't know what Legacypac's 5 pages in the category refers to. Your decision to characterise that as an attack and as a troll is bizarre. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to quote the following sentence from the first MFD: "I see no value in portals; not even the featured ones. May be when Wikipedia was new this space was of some use. But many portals are dead since long with no activity on them. Some editors believe that deletion of such portals implies that other portals are worth staying. That's a case of OSE. But we will have to look into this namespace now or later; so why not now?" Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't influencing my !vote. But it is relevant that some editors thought, four years ago, that portals were of little value. We have seen that creating thousands of portals isn't of value, and that robotic portals are not of value. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the second MFD, TTH responded to concerns about the portal by saying that they had rebuilt the portal from scratch. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Unfortunately, I have negative trust in the ability of the portal platoon to rebuild portals from scratch, and have observed that they break portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Portal:Ancient Tamil civilization. Old portal, 1 subpages, created 2012-05-19 18:51:03 by User:Wiki Raja. I agree with so poorly presented it looks narrow. The main article is rather History of Tamil Nadu. In any case, the topic is clearly encyclopedic. 1750 views in 90 days seems to be a large score for a portal... I think this one should be kept, while waiting for a general discussion about deleting or not the whole portal space. In between, the appearance of a maintainer would help. Pldx1 (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have Portal:Tamil Nadu which, if properly constructed, would cover the state's history. There is also a related miscapitalised Portal:Tamil People (Tamil people is the head article) which includes info on their history. Legacypac (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac, Portal:Tamil Nadu has a significantly narrower geographical scope. See the article Sangam period, which says:
In Old Tamil language, the term Tamilakam (Tamiḻakam தமிழகம், Purananuru 168. 18) referred to the whole of the ancient Tamil-speaking area, corresponding roughly to the area known as southern India today, consisting of the territories of the present-day Indian states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, parts of Andhra Pradesh, parts of Karnataka and northern Sri Lanka[1][2] also known as Eelam.
So the history of the state of Tamil Nadu is only a subset of the scope of this portal. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS note that the para I quoted is reproduced as the second para of the portal. It's hard to see how the nominator could have missed that when proposing Portal:Tamil Nadu as an alternative to this portal. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Buzz off - I was responding to Pldx1's comment. Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a private discussion, take it to user talk. This is a public, consensus-forming discussion where suggestions of alternate portals are a public issue. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not helpful to readers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic looks broad enough for a portal. Transhumanist has hand-selected 21 general articles, 42 literature articles, 17 bios and 6 images, which seems plenty to be going along with. Unlike the navbox portals, it is easy to add/subtract articles/images to improve the portal. Unless I'm missing something the original portal before Transhumanist's edits does not look to be worth saving. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. Portal:History of India certainly would. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict. Not a topic I'm particularly knowledgeable about but seems clear that sufficient scope has been demonstrated for a portal to exist. WaggersTALK 14:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.