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. Opinions are split, the subject has changed significantly, some concerns were addressed, and there aren't well-defined standards for what should and shouldn't have a portal. That about cover it? --BDD (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant[edit]

Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominating remaining not-yet-deleted entries created by indefinitely-blocked editor, as are listed here, in accordance with consensus not to lend legitimacy to ISIS. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a useless puff piece that is currently very broken. Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You broke it (by removing the </div> tags and by removing the {{Portal:box-footer|}} template), I fixed it. Feon {^t/_c} 15:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you fixed was all that was left after I took out the pro-ISIL ra-ra we are a state and this is our caliph junk. Hard to take your judgement seriously as you are the editor that added ISIL as a State with Limited Recognition to every military in Asia article. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Military of ISIL to the "States with limited recognition" column of the Template:Military of Asia because I saw this template at the bottom of the article and I thought that the article is missing in the template because it is about a military that is headquartered somewhere in Asia. Since ISIL is not a sovereign state or dependency, I thought that it is most closely described as a "state with limited recognition". I guess I was wrong.

Also, WP:NPA states "comment on content, not on the contributor". If you think that an argument is bad, searching edit history of the provider of the argument to discredit him/her/hir just because you don't like the argument, won't accomplish much. Providing a good counter-argument is a better way to go.

Finaly, since you have complained that the portal is "currently very broken", I simply said (and provided supporting diffs) that you accidentally broke it by mistakenly removing too much and that I have fixed it, so it is no longer broken. I don't see how is this purely technical issue related to some "pro-ISIL ra-ra we are a state and this is our caliph junk". It's hard to take such a comment seriously. Feon {^t/_c} 20:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete (per conversation below) Keep (Feon has stepped up to maintain the Portal) Unlike the articles that have been deleted, I don't see how this Portal lends ISIS legitimacy in its current state. It seems pretty harmless. Although I'm not sure whether ISIS is a topic that really needs its own portal.Bosstopher (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons for withdrawal of the first nomination stated by the withdrawing nominator and per Bosstopher's comment above. Feon {^t/_c} 16:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be supporting deletion because the previous nominator only withdrew on a technicality, but clearly wants the portal deleted. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that Wikipedia will not lend ISIS legitimacy. A fancy-looking "in gang colors" portal page lends legitimacy. They're just a temporarily-successful band of butchering raiders, like Boko Haram, not a government.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this is the case. The 9/11 attacks have a portal, but the existence of such a portal can hardly be seen as an endorsement of the attacks. Scientology has its own featured portal, but this doesn't mean that Wikipedia is giving legitimacy to Scientology. As long as the articles featured in the portal arent advertisements for ISIL, but instead properly written NPOV articles (which is what they're meant to be if they're featured in a portal), I dont see how this gives ISIL legitimacy. BUT that said I'm not sure if ISIL is a big enough topic to warrant having its own portal. But then again even Shakira has a portal, so who knows... Bosstopher (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete (see below) I see some promotional bias in the introduction, but the portal itself is not inherently promotional like the wilayat articles that we have been deleting en masse. We have portals on many groups of horrible people, but this in and of itself does not make the portals promotional. However, I agree with Legacypac that this portal is rather useless. The portal only contains the promotional introduction, al-Baghdadi’s biography and a few links to some related categories, projects and portals. The introduction and initial info boxes in the ISIL article are a far better entry point for ISIL research than this portal. Looking through its two and a half month history, this portal really hasn’t been updated beyond the addition and removal of promotional language. I honestly have zero reason to believe that this will ever be a fully constructed portal. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Keep per Feon's assumption of responsibility for this portal. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a significant contributor to ISIL articles I have no issue with properly written and titled content. I don't think the idea off the portal is promotional but the content of this portal has mainly been POV and I just can't see how it is useful or easy to properly provide context the short sections of a portal. I also object to the colors of ISIL themed (can that be changed if it is kept?). Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a further review of portal policy and guidelines, I believe a delete is justified. Wikipedia:Portal guidelines#In general (the closest thing to notability requirements for portals I was able to find) has several requirements for portals. These include a broad enough subject to sustain a portal, a complete portal layout or ongoing efforts to make it complete, continued maintenance, and serving a useful purpose. While I do not believe that this portal is inherently promotional, it runs afoul of more than enough portal guideline recommendations to justify a deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - with one caveats. I do not like the layout of the page. It has the ISIL colour theme running through it which needs to be changed. In fact could I request that someone change it immediately as readers are able to view it. An editor has previously mentioned the 9/11 portal. I just had a look and it seems to be a useful contents page on the issue for the reader to glance over. In that spirit I think we should keep the portal, though it is abysmal at the moment with the colour scheme, to group the ISIL related articles together. Spirit of eagle, this subjects is broad enough for a portal. There is something like a 60 member coalition counteracting this groups efforts. They are also involved in head chopping, sexual slavery and are the only group in the world to be implementing 7th century shariah law as practised at that time. Add to this the widespread, and near unanimous condemnation and critcism. I could go on but my point is there is plenty to cover and the scope of the portal will hopefully be broad. I understand your points on continued maintenance and if that can not be achieved then there is no point in keeping it. Mbcap (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone or some groups wants to build and maintain this portal, as well as clean out the promotional lead and introduction, then I would have no problem keeping it. However, if it is just going to be abandoned by everyone except pro-ISIL SPAs, then I see no reason not to delete the portal. For the purposes of this MfD, I'll change my vote if anyone volunteers to fix the numerous issues plaguing this portal. Otherwise, I'm sticking with my delete vote. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the colour scheme for the time being in case the portal is kept. I'm voting to delete for the time being because it seems as if nobody's interested in constructing and maintaining the portal. Bosstopher (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer maintain it for the time being, at least until more editors show interest, see my comment bellow. Feon {^t/_c} 12:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most portals are not a particularly good way to communicate information to users, as can be seen from the low level of readership traffic they receive compared to the topics they correspond to. This particular portal deserves deletion because it communicates much less information than the Wikipedia article about ISIL, even when considering the links from the portal. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment FWIW, I've updated the portal and made it somewhat easier to maintain by moving the content from the boxes to the sub-pages and enabling "edit" links on top-right of the boxes, so each box can now be edited individually without messing with the rest of the code. It should be more functional now. Feon {^t/_c} 12:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Close this discussion as the current version of the portal is very different then the version we started discussing. I don't see a clear decision to keep or delete here. No consensus due to changes done? Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I support a decision to delete. Please look at the early edit history of the portal. It was created, proposed for deletion and then had a large amount of work done to get it to a standard for keeping by the minimal number of, I believe, largely POV pushing editors concerned with two familiar editors now being banned. I have always considered the portal to be questionable while serving little purpose not covered by See also on the ISIL article and the categories of the page. Legacypac has a growing history of requesting closure of discussions and I would ask admin to independently review merits of continuation or closure. GregKaye 10:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about you keep your broad unfounded criticisms to yourself User:GregKeye. All discussions like this require closure. Deletion discussions need to run for a week but this area is backlogged. This one started 25 days ago when the Portal looked 100% different. 17:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) [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.