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 17:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Modern history[edit]

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

This is another quick creation by @The Transhumanist. It's not as bad as most of his creations, but I think that it's too poor to keep as a public-facing page unless radically improved.

This isn't built off a navbox. It uses an embedded list which shows signs of actual curation, unlike e.g. Shipwrecks, Habitats, and Electricity.

However, the skimpy list is very poor:

The problems include:

• Deeply biased towards the developed nations of the northern hemisphere.
• A ridiculously narrow month-by-month events list for the last two decades, which is way too narrow for the scope of this topic
• Nothing about the major political developments of the modern era: e.g. colonialism, decolonisation, absolute monarchies, nationalism, democracy, dictatorship, liberalism, communism, environmentalism, feminism, human rights
• Nothing about major economic issues of the modern era: e.g. industrialisation, capitalism, globalisation, finance, the joint stock com[pany, double-entry accounting, fossil fuels
• Nothing about the communications and transport revolutions: e.g. the printing press (which arguably began the modern era), rail transport, steam ships, postal systems, telephony, the internet, air travel, radio, television

I could make similar rough lists for the arts and culture education, religion, science, medicine, warfare, and a swathe of other topics.

Sure, a great portal could be constructed on modern history. But it needs to be built by editor(s) with a good grasp of the broad sweep of the last 500 years of global history, who can combine broad thematic topics with an understanding of eras which goes beyond listing centuries.

As it stands, this portal simply isn't ready for readers, and it hasn't improved at all in the 6 months since it was created. It could be deleted per WP:TNT ... or as a single-page portal it could be moved to the "Draft" namespace. But please, don't leave it as a live portal in this shape. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-11-27 20:47:01 by User:TTH, useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality. To be kept as an illustration of how useless are automated portal, even when dealing with extra-broad topics. With two views per day, this portal cannot be terribly harmful. Better let the portal fans argue that we have a good candidate for a portal, might need some work due to the method of creation, while nobody has any intent to put their precious feet in the mud of the trenches. Portal:Modern history. Pldx1 (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's not much of a deletion rationale presented. The topic is very broad and widely interesting. The portal meets the guidelines; in portal terms, it's graduated to start. It's easy to expand. The nominator has provided some excellent areas that it could be expanded to cover, and there are many more (Rationalism, Dissent, genetic engineering/cloning, antibiotics/vaccination, species extinction &c&c). I'd probably pare down the existing list to essentials, removing eg Cold War II, and then start subboxes, sliced by region, by era or in the broad subject areas that BHG suggests above. I'd also suggest adding at least one bio section (probably more than one), as there must be many hundreds of FAs on major figures in modern history, and many other key figures are GAs. I'd get rid of the by month links at the bottom, though some means of linking in to all this blow-by-blow content would be helpful. Is the creator @The Transhumanist: interested in further work on this? If not, BHG & I could probably improve it quite a bit in an afternoon, though I fear my historian credentials are entirely lacking. How about it, BrownHairedGirl? You were the one who suggested a portal incubator. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, the deletion rationale is that as it stands, it's no use to readers. As noted in the nom, I'd be fine with moving it to an incubator if someone wants to work on it.

And sorry, but I am not getting into portal-building. Given the low viewing rates and the low utility I see in them, I don't want to spend my time that way. My interest in this remains to clear out the worst of the junk from portalspace, so that readers don't waste their time on scores of pages which should never have gone live in the first place ... and also to help try to build a broad community consensus on what portals are for, how they should do it, and which topics they should do it for. I hope that will all make portals a less conflictual area ... and then I will move onto other things which I consider more productive. There was consensus a year ago at WP:ENDPORTALS not to kill all portals, which I of course accept ... but I don't want to put my energies into making them, any more than I want to work on documenting everything Pokemon or craft fanzine-level of detail on every individual blade of grass in Tolkein's works.

If you want to expand this portal, then good luck. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, notating as follows:
  • • The "Nothing"s listed by BHG are a very strong indication that the portal was developed with a trivia view of history. History does have a lot of trivia, but it also has themes.
    • The listing of events by dates is interesting and should be kept or set up somehow, maybe in a superlist of some sort, but is not a reason for a portal.
    • The argument by User:Pldx1 could be a deletion argument. They are saying to put this portal in the portal museum. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without prejudice to a real portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the issues raised in the nomination can all be dealt with through editing and/or appropriate tagging. In such cases the deletion policy is very clear what should be done. WaggersTALK 15:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense, @Waggers. 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.

Even if DP applied to portals, 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 the other pseudo-portals which you advocated keeping today, this a severe case. It is yet another piece of drive-by spam created by a notorious spammer (@The Transhumanist) who created about 4,000 spammy pseudo-portals and remains topic-banned from any such activity.

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 cherrypicking them.

There is a very clear community consensus to delete such spam without prejudice to re-creating a curated portal on the same topic.

I repeat what I have said elsewhere: if you are trying to discredit the Portal Project by representing it as the defenders of spam and decade-old rotten junk pages, then you have been doing a great job today. Otherwise, not so good. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 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 driveby spam by a creator of over 4,000 such spammed pages? 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.

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 spam? In what way does this benefit our readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 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 07:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense, Waggers.

People can put whatever tag they like at the top a guidance page, 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 continues 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 drive-by spam? In what way does this benefit our readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 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 13:07, 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 the spam created by a topic-banned spammer, most of whose spam has been mass-deleted? In what way does this benefit our readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my earlier replies. WaggersTALK 13:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... which are all about wikilawyering reasons not to delete spam.

Oh well, I have tried hard to see if you have any other goal, but since you just want to be the spam-defender, so be it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Portal:Modern history tells us that The 19th (nineteenth) century was a century that began on January 1, 1801, and ended on December 31, 1900. It is often used interchangeably with the 1800s, though the start and end dates differ by a year. Trying to empeach this great portal to teach such a great lesson to it's two viewers per day seems horrible to User:Waggers. Another horrible thing would be the discovery of the following statement:

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). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.

Ah, world is so injust ! Why not keeping the good old past when a 7 pages slideshow could be a FFP ? Pldx1 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I have struck my Weak Delete to replace it with a simple Delete (since there is no such thing as a strong Delete or Keep). This portal has had an average of 2 daily pageviews during the 1 Jan 2019 - 28 Feb 2019 period. That is, it is only looked at it to see that it exists. An actual use of the portal to facilitate reading about a subject would involve more than 2 pageviews. The head article, by contrast, has 1055 daily pageviews. Readers don't come to Wikipedia to read portals. They come to read articles, and they use links and categories to find the articles. There is no purpose in having robotic portals that no one uses. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 27 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.