Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Abkhazia

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. — xaosflux Talk 13:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Abkhazia

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

Abandoned non-portal.

This portal was created in 2009. It has undergone several rounds of formatting changes, but Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Abkhazia shows that it consists of:

And that's it.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But in this case, the head article Abkhazia and the navbox Template:Abkhazia topics provide better navigation, and better also sampling of various topics. This isn't a portal, just the outdated shell of a portal.

I am unsure whether this small nation (pop.~250,000) with limited recognition fits 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". We can see that for ten years, this portal has not attracted maintainers, which is a particular concern when the country's existence is disputed, because that makes it a high-risk target for POV-pushers.

I used AWB to scan Category:Abkhazia +3 levels of subcats, and found 302 articles which are neither tagged not assessed as stubs, of which 226 are specifically assessed as FA, GA, A, B, C or list-class. (Yes, I know that start-class articles are not forbidden by POG, but in my experience under-scrutinised topic areas tend to have a lot of stubs classed as start). That's enough material to sustain a portal, if someone wants to both build it and it is actively maintained.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT without prejudice to recreating a curated portal which is not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this abandoned heritage portal, without prejudice as per the analysis. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robert McClenon: Note that the portal is no longer abandoned, and has been significantly expanded after this discussion was initiated. North America1000 18:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most nations are suitable for portals, though I agree this one might be borderline. I also agree with the nominator's assessment that 226 C+ articles are sufficient; and while some starts are stubby, in my experience some are likely to be C-ish too. Is there a PoV problem in this area? That would seem the major reason why deletion might be required. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the above comments, there's sufficient scope for a portal. While it's true that some of the existing articles on the topic need some improvement, as does the portal itself, that's likely down to systemic bias (see WP:WORLDVIEW) and deletion is only going to exacerbate that problem. Concerns about the content of the portal should be handled by editing and appropriate tagging, per the deletion policy. WP:PORTAL and WP:POG, referred to above, are an information page and a best practice content guideline respectively; they are not existential requirements. WaggersTALK 15:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Waggers, articles are content, so deleting them removes content.
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 ten years. This isn't a content issue; it is a rotten, almost non-existent junk issue. This isn't a portal which need some improvement; an understatement so severe is a gross misrepresentation. It's an abandoned shell.
I am well aware of the systemic bias problem, but I am astonished to see that an editor thinks that is any way alleviated by advertising to our readers that we have a "portal" on a topic, only to know that when they visit it they will discover this junk? That's like advertising a car, and taking the buyer to pile of rusted pieces in the scrapyard.
What on earth is the point of wasting the time 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 2009 is self-defeating. It seems that you are adopting the never-mind-the-quality-just-count-the-numbers ethos af TTH's newsletters. That didn't end well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 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 17:55, 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 junk which has abandoned for a decade while masquerading as a showcase and/or navigational tool? Really?
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 a TV set: the set delivers the content to you, but it is not content.
So the difference between a good and bad portal is what instructions are given, but the content remains 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 rotten junk? In what way does this benefit our readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course portals have content. WP:POG is a content guideline, it says so at the top. We don't have content guidelines for things that don't have content.
Describing good faith page creation using a few tools as "spam" is just an example of WP:YELLVAND. It's a totally inaccurate mischaracterisation.
None of what you've said has convinced me there's a policy based reason for deleting this portal; in fact, quite the opposite. WaggersTALK 07:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More nonsense, Waggers.
People can put whatever tag they like at the top a guidancepage, but it doesn't alter the fact that portals are not content. We could put a label on a photo of a cow saying that it's actually a technical drawing of an electrical circuit, but it will remain a cow.
As to spam, there is clear community consensus to a ) topic-ban TTH as a portalspammer; b) mass delete his spam. Waggers continue their campaign of disruption against the consensus.
So I'll ask again. @Waggers, What on earth are you actually trying to achieve by keeping this rotten junk? In what way does this benefit our readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to provide a policy based reason for deletion, not on me to provide a reason for this portal to be kept - although I've already done that, and you have yet to do the former. WaggersTALK 13:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More wiklawyering. We a here to build an encyclopedia, not to engage in scholastic interpretation of documents drawn up to facilitate that aim. @Waggers, What on earth are you actually trying to achieve by keeping this rotten junk? In what way does this benefit our readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to my earlier replies. WaggersTALK 13:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... which are all about wikilawyering reasons not to delete decade-old abandoned junk.
Oh well, I have tried hard to see if you have any other goal, but since you just want to be the crusader who tries to ensure that our readers continue to be lured to abandoned draft-portals for another decade, so be it. I have seen better hills to die on, mais hacun son goût. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's so hard to understand. The subject is worthy of a portal. If we keep the portal we can improve it and if appropriately tagged it's visible in the relevant maintenance categories for us to work on; if we delete it we can't. But I've said all that already - you can take a horse to water etc. WaggersTALK 11:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the point of opposing deletion is to keep this as part of set of hundreds of portals which abandoned for between five and 14 years, in the magical hope that magical editors are somehow going to magically appear and magically fix it? They haven't fixed the hundreds of other broken, rotted, and/or abandoned portals ... so this is just magical thinking.
If the portal is deleted, then a newer, better shell can be created in seconds if anyone wants to build a real portal, so deletion is no impediment to building a better portals.
And if editors really, genuinely have a plan to build viable portals, the solution is simply to just create a list. There is no need to keep wasting readers time with abandoned junk just because this magical team of magical editors cannot or will not maintain a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per the nomination we have deleted many portals similar to this. I have got one question: why got a notification in the talk page of Talk:Abkhazia but not in Yemen when the portal:Yemen was nominated for deletion?--SharabSalam (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see below 07:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC) - Old draft of a portal, 21 subpages, created 2009-05-15 19:04:30 by User:Sephia karta. Only the snippet of one article! This thing has never attained the existence threshold. Therefore no need to kill it, it was never alive. User:Waggers will be satisfied ! Portal:Abkhazia. Pldx1 (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nomination --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 08:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The scope is fine, it just needs to be maintained, and I actually found this nomination while I was in the midst of trying to edit it. Just give me a laundry list of ways to improve it and I'll be more than happy to work on it. Per the deletion of the portal for states with limited recognition, where I argued that it's better to have a single portal for all of the states, other editors (including some at this nomination) explained to me why that created a confusing scope. This portal, however, has a very straightforward yet broad enough scope. All it needs is a to-do list of ways the portal can be improved. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:00, 12 May 2019
  • Just give me a laundry list of ways to improve it. This is rather simple. WP:POG says 20 of each. Since there already is ONE article, it only remains to provide NINETEEN articles, and TWENTY of each of other items. Good work ! Pldx1 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't tell if this is supposed to be sarcasm, but I genuinely don't think it's going to be that hard to find 20 articles that "deal with its subject substantially or comprehensively" considering that I've already done the work of finding hundreds of articles relating to states with limited recognition for the WP:WPLR WikiProject. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There, now there's 20 decent selected articles. That took, what, 22 minutes? I'll take care of the biographies etc next. (I also updated the news section, by the way). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend: per WP:POG, selected articles are technically all that's listed as required. I could stop now, but I'm not going to because it's really not that hard and I genuinely want to make it into a good portal. As a general guideline, if it takes longer to delete it than it would take to fix it yourself, you should probably do the latter... Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done 20 selected articles  Done 20 selected biographies  Done 20 selected images  Done updated news. I think it's more than fair to say that the rationale of many of the delete !votes is now outdated and obsolete, but I'll nevertheless continue adding to the selected images, DYK, etc. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also tried to make it a little nicer and more user-friendly (fixed the odd purple color, fixed the uneven columns) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would users who previously !voted delete please re-evaluate their !votes? The current revision bears limited resemblance to the version that was nominated for deletion. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Its a pleasure to encounter someone who does the maintenance job. Concerning the time this takes, it depends mostly on a previous knowledge of the topic. Pldx1 (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kudos to the maintainer who has come forward, but this topic still does not meet the breadth-of-subject-matter requirement of the WP:POG guideline. Suggest contributing to Portal:Georgia (country) instead. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to respectfully point to BrownHairedGirl's assessment that there is in fact enough material to build a portal so long as it is updated with curated content. I also point to the requirements at WP:POG; as was noted above by Pldx1, a "good amount" is defined as roughly 20 of each "selected (x)", which this portal now meets. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:POG in terms of the broadness of the subject, and the portal has been significantly expanded by BrendonTheWizard after this MfD discussion was initiated. North America1000 18:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have struck my Delete !vote as requested by Brendon and NA1K. I recommend that this MFD be Relisted to allow consideration of its new maintained status. It will otherwise be ready for closure on 14 May and will probably wait up to two weeks for actual closure anyway, so that Relisting is a useful formality. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 13 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Abkhazia&oldid=897208091"