Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adele (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: delete. Clear consensus in this discussion to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Adele[edit]

Portal:Adele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
All prior XfDs for this page:

I'd like to make clear off the bat that this is the second nomination for deletion that this portal has received this year. However, I nominate this portal because certain facts have since come to light that were never addressed in the previous nomination.

This is portal was created in 2016 by MaranoFan until it was upgraded by TTH on 8 September 2018‎ to basically its current semi-automated state. Before that, Dreamy Jazz did do some substantial restructuring of the portal [1]. That version looks pretty nice tbh, but it has some significant quirks that I won't get into.

The portal uses (among other things):

It's usage of a {{Adele}} to select its article content makes this portal a WP:REDUNDANTFORK terrible off-brand clone of a single navbox. It almost doesn't need saying at this point, but consensus is clearly against portals based off a single navbox (See MFD:Mass-created Navbox portals 1 and MFD:Mass-created Navbox portals 2).

Further, to quote BrownHairedGirl in her nomination of Portal:Lenovo since withdrawn because my trainwreck is still somehow chugging.:

Note also that the two main features of this type of portal are page preview and an image gallery. However, two newish features of Wikipedia render these features redundant:

  1. mouseover: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, mouseover on any of the linked list items shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links
  2. automatic imagery galleries: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, clinking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal

That's for desktop readers. Similar functionality has been part of the Android app for Wikipedia since 2015.

Unique to this type of portal is that the community seems to disfavor portals centered on a single person, musician, or band. See:

All of which closed as some form of delete or resulted in a deletion. I won't go into depth on the different circumstances of each nomination because I find that to be a little too tedious. I will still mention that there are still pending discussions within this area, so consensus is by no means set in stone here. Suffice to say, portals based off single musicians have historically been disfavored with ones based off a single navbox even moreso.

Since this has generally come up with my recent nominations, I will elaborate on the subpages of this portal. Since the changes made by DreamyJazz were implemented, the majority of the subpages are no longer needed (/Topics, /Categories, etc.). That being said, 12 subpages are uniquely unnecessary since they are just redirects to the selected content. When it comes to said selections; there is one selected album (19), one selected article(Adele Live), and one selected song ("Hello"). That brings the total to: 3 selected pages. There isn't much else worth mentioning here because the portal is only about 3 years old.

With all that being said, keeping in mind the results of previous nominations, I suggest that this portal and its subpages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a manually curated portal in accordance with whatever future guidelines are implemented by community consensus. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have notified all editors who participated in the previous discussion using this talk page notice. I did this to help the discussion gets as much participation from previous editors as possible to ensure a proper consensus is reached. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry to beat the same drum yet again but please stop using WP:REDUNDANTFORK, which is explicitly specific to articles, as a rationale for deleting portals. Every portal repeats article content; that's their purpose. Certes (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – WP:REDUNDANTFORK and the entire Wikipedia:Content forking page was written specifically in regards to articles only, and states nothing about Portal namespace content. Fact is, there is nothing about portals on the page at all; even the word "portal" is not present. Conversely, the word "article" is used 100 times throughout the page (as of this post, link). Ultimately, the use of Redundant fork toward Portal namespace content is a slippery slope and overextension of the Content forking guideline page, as well as the intent of the page when it was written; it's about articles. North America1000 00:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Northamerica1000 and Certes: You're points are well taken. To avoid getting into the arguement for the 100th time, I've just replaced the words WP:REDUNDANTFORK with terrible off-brand clone. I don't agree we should apply that guideline so narrowly because I believe in a form of loose constructionism for interpreting these things, but that really is neither here nor there. The sentiment is there that these off-brand clones aren't needed no matter what people want to call them. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MJL, it's a sad indication of the dire state of the portals project that two of its leading members — Northamerica1000 & Certes — pitch up at this MFD to quibble about against a broad interpretation of a policy rather than to uphold the clear community consensus against portals cloned from a single navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I resigned membership in the project some time ago, in part due to the sad, unnecessary negative typecasting and stereotyping of project members that has been occurring in various areas during these ongoing discussions. Furthermore, the WikiProject should not be blamed for any and all matters regarding all portals that may arise, which is very overreaching. North America1000 09:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also removed my name several months ago. Another editor has likened the WikiProject's current situation to a Republican running a Democrats' congress. Certes (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See analysis of Music Portals (esp. by Moxy) showing that article has 7,403 daily page views but portal has 14 daily page views. The portal is not attracting large numbers of readers, or a portal maintainer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single performer is a narrow topic, and for even for a broad topic this type of portal is useless.
It is just a pointless clone which draws its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox Template:Adele, or which it is therefore just a bloated and redundant fork. Broad community consensus to delete this type of portal is well-established: 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.
Since the mass deletions, I have become more aware of the significance of two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Adele, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Adele, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow.
This pseudo-portal draws the list of images for its image slideshow solely from the head article Adele. So it's completely redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Automated portal, 23 subpages, created 2016-01-03 13:40:14 by User:MaranoFan, useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality. Nothing to keep. Portal:Adele. Pldx1 (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Now please stop tagging me here and continually notifying me about this discussion on my talk page. It will be appreciated!—NØ 09:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. I think another user thought I didn't notify you and posted the redundant message to your talk page. My apologies for the excessive notifications. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG. Those two features break the point of this portal completely. I have always been a little leery of projects and portals devoted to individuals or other small topics. The problem is not that these things are evil or terrible in their own right. The problem is that we have so many of these unmaintained portals, and they regularly fall behind other navigation tools which are actively maintained (categories and so on). Even worse, many unmaintained portals pretend to be maintained by using some automation. An unmaintained page can be a target for any form of vandalism or bad behavior, or accidents of automation. They can also just look bad. If they were very useful to readers, that might be worth risking. But portals like this one are so narrow that I interpret them as toeing the line of violating WP:POG's narrowness clause outright. I am always stunned at how much deliberation has been done on portals and yet, WP:POG is such a short article with vague rules. Whatever the reason, it leaves it up to us to look at each portal and make our decision. I find the use of POG in the last MfD to be spurious--there is no clear definition of what to consider as meeting the conditions listed in POG. So I'm not basing my vote totally on that. I'm basing it on the health of Wikipedia. This portal is a door which goes nowhere useful, but which may be exploited by vandals nonetheless. Let's delete it. Prometheus720 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
  1. It redundantly forks several navboxes.
  2. An individual person is very rarely a broad topic.
SITH (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per BHG. Completely redundant and very narrow topic to start from. Portals are usually created for topics in broad scope. Störm (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – What's the point, save for WP:FANCRUFT ? — JFG talk 15:25, 29 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:Adele_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=899868406"