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

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Atlanta[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are also subpages in place that are now unused.

If we need portals, Metro Atlanta deserves a portal, but not these two automated mass produced nav box portals created by two members of the portal proliferation team. We should also not go back to this hard to read mess [1] before the restart that removed all the existing content on the page and replaced it with auto harvested content [2]. Redlink and let interested editors recreate if desired.

Note how similar Atlanta metropolitan area and Portal:Atlanta metropolitan area look, except the portal has a lot less info in it.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Atlanta was the deletion of an empty page and not relevant.

Legacypac (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Portal:Atlanta and Revert to this former curated, non-automated version:

I fixed the red-link errors as denoted in the nom by creating a new box-header page, a very easy task that took seconds. The revert-to version linked in my !vote is now error-free.
For curated portals, minor matters regarding portal subpages that are easily fixable should not be a qualifier for deletion.
Red links that appear in past versions of curated portals that occur due to portal subpages being deleted per WP:G6 uncontroversial maintenance after automation occurred should never be a qualifier for deletion of an entire portal.
The box-header page that I recreated for this portal is an example of such G6 deletion that occurred (see the log for the page)
For more context, see the present discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Portal deletion at MfD and G6 tagging and deletion of portal subpages (perm link)
It's important to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Topically and per available content, Atlanta meets WP:POG guidelines.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your preferred version has "DYK.....that Holy Spirit College in Atlanta, Georgia, will admit its first class of full-time undergraduate students later this year?" But DYK that this year is 2010? Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor matters such as this can be addressed by basic WP:COPYEDITING. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can but are not addressed in 9 years. Atlanta gets readers and editor attention. This not so much. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Portal:Atlanta/Did you know/8 was replaced. Now a moot point. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently pages have to come to MfD and have the problems pointed out one by one. How are you proposing to fix the problem of two overlapping portals here? Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Portal:Atlanta metropolitan area, which is an unnecessary duplicate portal as well as being an automated product of the portal platoon. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and caution: This nomination will have to be closed as two separate nominations, one being non-contentious and the other being contentious. Absolutely do not add any more portals to this nomination; it is close enough to being a train wreck with two portals nominated. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Questions - Why don't portal advocates occasionally check whether the DYKs and ITNs are current? Also, how many pageviews does the portal have? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Regarding updates, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY could be part of the reason why. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete for Portal:Atlanta - The case for retention of this portal is underwhelming, consisting mostly of hand waves intended to wave away the case that the portal is semi-abandoned, but it still is semi-abandoned until there are complaints. It is true that maintenance of the portal is optional, as stated above, and the portal is also optional. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2019-01-04 21:26:53, to be deleted: Portal:Atlanta metropolitan area. Pldx1 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)see below Pldx1 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Comment - Old portal, 54 subpages, created 2010-03-05 01:28:10 by User:SoCal L.A.. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Atlanta. Pldx1 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both

- Portal:Atlanta metropolitan area (the obvious one) - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2019-01-04 21:26:53

- Portal:Atlanta (the other one) - Old portal, 53 subpages, created 2010-03-05 01:28:10 by User:SoCal L.A.. In its current version, we only have a rehash of the eponymous article and template. But there is no former curated, non-automated version. It suffices to open the "revert to this" proposed by User:Northamerica1000. There are no babies here. Since none of the 53 subpages were deleted, this is easy to check (the 54th subpage, i.e. /box-header that was replaced by Box-header has no content). Therefore, anybody can check by herself that this abandoned 2012-bathwater used only the snippets of 10 articles and 5 biographies. As a result, TTH was totally right when taking the editorial decision of replacing this unmaintained mess by something at least derived from the navbox. What is proposed here is even better, using the article and its navbox as navigation tools, instead of one of the various versions of this disaster (13 views a day - except when advertised at MfD).

Pldx1 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The history here nicely illustrates the wider systemic problem with portals:

The older manual portals were overwhelmingly poorly maintained or simply abandoned. Most of them were broken and/or out-of-date, so they were converted to an automated format. And the overwhelming consensus at multiple MFDs is that the automated format is pretty useless.

And once we again, we have portal fans saying we should revert to the manual version and fix it. And as usual, they have no explanation for how manuals versions will suddenly start to be maintained after years of systemic neglect.

Meanwhile, we already have have very good navigational hubs for each of these topics, at the head articles Atlanta and Atlanta metropolitan area. They are assisted by a fine set of navboxes, which provide much better navigation than any version of the portals does.

WP:PORTAL says that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" ... but as with so many other examples, these portals are in fact degraded versions of the main pages. Our readers will be much better served by ceasing to lure them to waste their time on yet more failed portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 19 April 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.