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. There appear to be two questions here, a) whether the topic is broad enough to meet WP:POG's topic width criteria and b) whether a portal being unmaintained and in a poor state is a deletion reason under the deletion policy. Regarding a) there is disagreement between people who think a nation is a good topic and those who think that a small country isn't a good one; the guideline gives little guidance and there is no overwhelming support for a given stance, so "no consensus" on the topic question. Regarding b) it seems like a lot of people here think that a worthy portal could be created, but this hasn't happened yet. So that leaves the thorniest question, whether "unmaintained and still not fixed" is a valid reason for deleting a page. Elsewhere, the essay (not policy or guideline) WP:TNT is often cited in such situations, as is done by the nominator. There is also a question about whether a portal counts as "content" for the purpose of the deletion policy and about whether "in severe cases" in the deletion policy constitutes a case for deletion. Based on headcount it seems like BrownHairedGirl, Robert McClenon (and also Pldx1?) are advocating deletion due to the maintenance issue while Waggers and Northamerica1000 think this should be salvaged, EspressoAddict's preference is less clear and UnitedStatesian did not express an opinion on this aspect of the discussion.

My sense is that this discussion leans to deletion based on the headcount, but it's not so clear cut that I'd feel comfortable to call it a consensus in favour of deletion. So no consensus this is. Also, a super-suggestion: I'd also advise to start a discussion on WT:POG, WT:DEL or any appropriate discussion page about whether "long-term lack of maintenance" is a deletion reason for a portal or a project page more generally; I've seen this discussion with regards to portals play out in many other MFDs, with no clear cut consensus in favour of a particular stance. A centralized discussion might be helpful here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Azerbaijan[edit]

Portal:Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned manual non-portal (only one of each) converted to a navbox-based automated portal.

The current version[1] of this portal is an automated one, drawing its article list solely from the navbox Template:Azerbaijan topics. That makes it a redundant fork of the navbox, and there is a clear community consensus to delete portals built this way. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

However, this portal was not included in the mass deletions because it has a prior history. It was created[2] in June 2006‎ Grandmaster (talk · contribs) as a manual portal with subpages, and in January 2019‎ converted[3] by @The Transhumanist (TTH) to automated format.

I can see why TTH automated it, because the manual version (see e.g. the 27 August 2015 version[4]) was just a long-abandoned static page with one of everything. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Azerbaijan shows

Portal:Azerbaijan/Did you know, with 5 entries

The result is just a single static, outdated page, with neither navigational aids nor effective content-sampling. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" ... but this offers no enhancement over the head article Azerbaijan and the navbox Template:Azerbaijan topics.

In other words, after 11 years of this portal's existence, there is no version worth keeping. We should not be wasting readers' time by encouraging them to visit this pointless page.

Yes, I am aware that Azerbaijan is a country. But very poor-quality country portals have previously been deleted: see Angola and Myanmar. This one is slightly better than Angola, and significantly better than the basically-empty Myanmar portal; but still not good enough to justify sending readers to it.

WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Azerbaijan is clearly a broad topic, but there is no clear community consensus either way on which broad topics should have portals. The head article is a Level-4 vital article, i.e. it is in the 1,001–10,000 range of priority topics, which seems to me to be a marginal set. As of now there 1,368 portals, of which 149 are being discussed at MFD, leaving only 1,209 whose existence is undisputed. So it seems to me to be unlikely that community has the resources to extend portals far (if at all) into VA-4 topics.

But surprises can happen, and there no consensus to deprecate portals on this sort of topic; many editors argue that there should be portal for every country. So I propose that this portal its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT without prejudice to recreating a curated portal which is not a fork of some other page, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portals are not content, so they are not covered by content-based aspects of deletion policy. They are a navigational device and/or a showcase for existing content, so the case for their existence depends on whether they do that well enough to add value per WP:PORTAL: "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". If they don't do that, they should be deleted, just like we routinely delete redundant or non-defining categories.
In this case, the pseudo-portal has rotted for thirteen years. This isn't a content issue; it is a rotten, almost non-existent junk issue.
What on earth is the point of wasting the tine of readers by trying to keep this rotten junk? If your aim was to discredit the whole portals project by retaining even the most useless and and most long-abandoned pages, then you would be doing brilliantly ... but if you have any other objective, then your determination to let this abandoned relic of 2006 is self-defeating. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't referred to any specifically content-oriented aspects of the deletion policy but to general principles that apply as much to portals as anywhere else. This entire nomination is based on what can be seen at the portal; the selected articles, pictures etc and frequency of updates. You can't update a shell or a framework, (other than changing colours and formatting etc) so the argument that "portals are not content" makes no sense in the context of a nomination that is all about the content of a portal. If you are concerned about what readers see when viewing a portal that needs additional maintenance, then the deletion policy already gives a perfectly workable solution: WP:ATD-T WaggersTALK 17:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, @Waggers. Deletion policy gives a remedy in cases like this of deleting the page.
Portals have no content; they simply direct readers to content elsewhere, or display content which is located elsewhere. If you disagree, then please show me the content in this portal: there's none except WP:REDUNDANTFORKs in the rotting old subpages.
As to the DP, even if it applied to portals which consist solely of code (like this one), WP:DEL-CONTENT says very clearly "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases".
Like most of he other pseudo-portals which you advocated keeping today, this a severe case. It is automated junk of a type which the community has overwhelmingly supported deleting, built on top a 13-year-old draft. Both versions purport to offer an enhanced view of the topic, but do nothing of the sort.
Yet you continue to point to WP:DEL-CONTENT as if it placed a total ban on deleting junk pages, which it explicitly doesn't. Please read policies before wandering around cherrypicking them.
I repeat: if you are trying to discredit the Portal Project by representing it as the defenders of spam and of decade-old rotten junk pages, then you are doing a great job. Otherwise, not so good. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're copying and pasting exactly the same text across multiple discussion pages, I'll simply refer you to my reply to this particular one made elsewhere. Suffice to say, there's no "if" - deletion policy is deletion policy and applies to the whole project, as any administrator worth their salt knows full well - and if there was no content to a portal then there would be no difference between a portal worth having and one that isn't. Clearly that isn't the case. WaggersTALK 17:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, @Waggers, policy is policy. So as an administrator yourself you should not have to be reminded yet again that WP:DEL-CONTENT says very clearly "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases".
So are you really, seriously, trying to claim that deletion policy forbids the deletion of a page which has basically two versions: a) a replica of the drive-by spam by a creator of over 4,000 such spammed pages; and b) a 13-year-old abandoned draft? Really?
If you are serious, go to DRV, and ask for the two mass nominations to be overturned. Because all the wikilawyering cherrypicked-picked "policy" arguments you make here apply there too.
You write if there was no content to a portal then there would be no difference between a portal worth having and one that isn't. Oh dear. This is not complicated: the portal contains instruction to link to or transclude content located elsewhere. It's just like a TV set: the set delivers the content to you, but it is not content. If someone steals your TV set, the content won't disappear, because TV set is just a delivery mechanism, like a portal.
So the difference between a good and bad portal is what instructions are given, but the content is stored elsewhere. That's why, as you are well aware, the precondition for creating a portal is that enough content exists elsewhere.
And I ask again. What on earth are you actually trying to achieve by keeping this junk? In what way does this benefit our readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When the skeleton is there,
the elephant can be improved at will
036 -> 2019-03-26 Baskervill
037 -> 2019-04-02 Verman1
038 -> 2019-04-09 Agulani
039 -> 2019-04-26 Kheo17
040 -> 2019-05-01 Grandmaster
041 -> 2019-05-04 Cekli829
042 -> 2019-05-05 Hovhannesk
043 -> 2019-05-05 Nicat49
044 -> 2019-05-07 Daydreamer2011
045 -> 2019-05-08 Brandmeister
What could be their opinion about using the skeleton of a portal and pretend to describe Azerbaijan as a country... with simply THREE articles ? Remark: waiting for a answer from the Project itself, would give the impression that you have not done your homework.
Pldx1 (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has been wasting the time of readers for 13 years. What exactly are you trying to achieve by retaining junk which has been abandoned for 13 years? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • "Junk" is a subjective weasel word. The portal has potential to be improved. North America1000 22:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Revert seems to be the same weasel sentence as ever, that would be better stated as "I !vote keep while you, peones, are required to work in my stead". It seems that User:Northamerica1000 cannot be arsed to invest the small quantum of NA1K's precious time that would be required to push the undo button and revert this portal to the wrong version of NA1K's choice. Another possibility is that Northamerica1000 is not in a hurry to astound the world by practicing the improvement of a dead elephant's skeleton to the point of producing a living elephant. Miracles help to maintain faith. Pldx1 (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Northamerica1000, it is utterly outrageous projection for you to accuse me of using subjective weasel word by calling this "junk". You know perfectly well that the nomination sets out in great detail exactly how this portal has been abandoned, and why I assess it as junk. The only assessment you have offered is the one word "imperfect", even though you know full well that all of the portal's selected content remains unchanged since 2011 or before. The only one using a subjective weasel word here is you, and you engaging in shameless smearing. Please clean up your act. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me a question. I answered it. It's my opinion; there's no accusation, "smearing", none of it. You're reading into a simple comment way too much. Don't take it personally; it's not personal. As I said, the portal has significant potential for major expansion. North America1000 13:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why MFD them? Because :
  1. there are literally hundreds of long-term abandoned portals, most of the completely abandoned for between 5 and 14 years. There is no tag to identify long-term abandoned portals, and no category to track them, because the WP:WPPORT has never throughout its history engaged in any systematic quality-monitoring of portals.
    e.g. Category:All portals currently contains 1,331 portals, of which 1,074 are in Category:Unassessed Portal pages. That's 81% of portals to which to no assessment rating has ever been assigned. The portals project has simply never done basic monitoring of quality, let alone tracking of specific problems, which is why hundreds of abandoned portals have rotted for up to 13 years
  2. Because as well as having no identifiable programme of assessment, the portals project also has no identifiable of repairing and updating the many hundreds of portals which are inadequate due to having less than ten pages showcase, nor the hundreds more which still display content in aged conetent forks, contrary to WP:REDUNDANTFORK
  3. Building a decent portal which would actually add value to readers takes time and research, and knowledge of the topic. NA1K has not identified any editor with the skills and commitment to build and maintain a portal on this topic. The only offer so far is from NA1K, who as far I know is not an Azerbaijan expert ... even that is vague I may expand the portal if it's retained. Not "I will raise it to high standard", not "I will maintain it", not "I will anything" ... just a vague maybe-do-something-unspecified as NA1K has made at many previous MFDs. The best that will come out of that is maybe a few extra subpages added before NA1K moves on to leave the portal to rot again, without a maintainer.
  4. Because a set of 12-year-old content forks is no base from which to start building a portal which might actually add value for readers. Much better to stat afresh, using new tools to build a new portal without the forked subpages.
That last point is particularly important. So far as I can see, any editor who claims that the outdated content forks are in any way helpful to building a a decent portals to replace abandoned junk simply hasn't been keeping with the tools available.
For the last 2 months, I and other editors have worked in good faith to try to clear out the automated portalspam created in the last year, and the abandoned junk which has accumulated over a decade of neglect. It has been my hope throughout that this would leave a core of portals which add some value for readers, and could be built on. But if members of the portals project are going to oppose the cleanup of abandoned junk without a mechanism, plan, or topic-skilled editors to fix them, and cling to the fantasy that these many hundreds of abandoned pages are somehow going to be magically fixed by magical topic experts who magically appear from nowhere to magically fix the portals they have shown no interest in over the past decade ... then it may be time to abandon this approach and simply propose mass deletion of most portals.
It's time for the portal fans to choose. If they cling to the fantasy, then the result will be another decade of portalspace strewn with abandoned junk, and I don't think that the community still an appetite for putting up with that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[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.


More