Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Beer

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. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Beer[edit]

Stale portal. This portal relies mostly on transcluded ledes. "Selected brewery" is the exception and it shows as there is a lot of outdated content being presented to readers. Anchor Brewing Company went bankrupt in 2023. Molson Coors acquired Miller in 2013. Primo Schincariol is apparently defunct. AB no longer has any share in Tsingtao Brewery. Many things of note have happened to Anheuser-Busch Companies in the past decade. You may have heard. Carlsberg links to a disambiguation page. Schierbecker (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as portal creator. I'm surprised we still have portals - I thought they'd gone years ago. I haven't edited that portal since 2009. I think if folks want to keep portals, a method should be found to automatically update them. I have no opinion on if this one should be kept or not. I do note that it attracts readers - over 1,000 a month, so it seems that some folks consistently find it of use. SilkTork (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As stated, this portal relies mostly on transcluded ledes. That is standard practice for portals and is what prevents them from becoming stale, because those ledes change automatically when anyone updates the transcluded article. The "Selected brewery" panel was indeed the exception. I just replaced it by transcluded ledes. All information should now be up to date; if any is still stale then the relevant article is also wrong and updating it there will automatically fix the portal. Certes (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilkTork, I'm curious if this changes your opinion. (One lingering problem with the transclusion model implemented on most portals is that poor-quality articles remain in the rotation [this is still a problem with Portal:Beer even with Certes' change], often without being noticed for years. Some portals transclude a list of featured articles maintained by bots on WikiProjects, but this model also has issues, primarily that the bot-maintained lists sometimes have articles that have no relevance to the portal.) Schierbecker (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The selected breweries I added include several GAs, and all are at least B-class. The risk that some may deteriorate does exist but is minimised by using automatically updating transclusions. Certes (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that. Good change. Thanks. Schierbecker (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schierbecker, thanks for the ping. I don't use portals, and even when I created this one, they were something I didn't fully understand. I created it because I was very active in editing beer articles at the time, and the Beer Project didn't have one, and every other WikiProject did. Looking at your nomination, and the two supports which echo you: "stale portal", and then looking at previous MfDs which also use this non-deletion policy phrase, this looks like a soft, backdoors way of clearing portals from Wikipedia - the "stale" rationale itself doesn't seem to make sense given what Certes says. It just appears as though you want rid of portals. Fair enough. But why are you doing it this long winded way? Why not open a discussion to close down the Portal space? Frankly I have little interest in the portals or portals in general, but I do have an interest in seeing that things are done appropriately, and this doesn't look appropriate. I do not see an appropriate rationale for deletion for this particular portal, so, yes, I will make a vote. SilkTork (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that deletion of portals, with some exceptions, does not look appropriate.

I note you created the portal because every WikiProject had one. This matches my perspective, Portals are features of WikiProjects. I think they have proven to be unsuitable features. They are confused as to whether they are reader-facing, or editor-facing. To the extent that they are reader-facing, they are far inferior to their main articles. To the extent that they assist reader navigation, they are inferior to main article wikilinks and navboxes. The use of transcluded ledes I. My view makes them even worse than before, because they continue to present unsourced information. Finally, to a very good approximation, readers don’t read them, let’s abandon the idea that readers do or should read Portals.

All then that’s left is that they are editor facing. As they are already associate with WikiProjects, I think they should all be moved to their corresponding WikiProject space, and when this is done, PortalSpace deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stale portal. Catfurball (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument which comes up in almost every portal MfD. What is a "stale" portal? This one's content rotates between typically 30 alternatives each time the page is regenerated. I've never seen "stale" used as an argument for deletion in any other namespace. What policy or guideline, presumably unique to portals, requires us to make endless regular edits to sections which are already correct and mandates deletion if we do not? Certes (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a stale portal, and pretty much a waste of space. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Portal is not stale, it is actively updated. And "stale" is not an appropriate deletion rationale. If folks wish to remove Portal space from Wikipedia, it would be more appropriate to have a dedicated discussion raising the concerns regarding the Portal space. SilkTork (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the portal - This portal has subpages for articles, beers, breweries, and people, and so appears on first glance to be a portal that uses subpages. It was created in Feb. 2006 by User:SilkTork, who no longer maintains it. It also appears to have had drive-by maintenance by User:Northamerica1000, who does drive-by maintenance on portals, because they like portals. However, interior inspection and a view of the history shows that it doesn't use subpages, but has transclusion lists, and so does not have content rot, and that it was redesigned by User:Northamerica1000 in June 2020.

The portal is viewed about 2% as often as the lead article:

Time	Daily Portal Views	Daily Article Views	Percent
Jan 23- Dec 23	46	2184	2.1%
Jan 22 - Dec 22	47	2105	2.2%
Jan 21 - Dec 21	39	1921	2.0%

The nominator says that the portal is stale. There are two possible meanings of a stale portal. The first is that the lists of articles are not current, and the second is that the portal displays non-current content forks of the articles. The ~~first~~second only applies to portals that rely on subpages. The subpages of this portal are ignored. With 130 articles listed in the transclusion lists, updating the lists of articles is not important. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We never quite worked out whether WP:NOBODYREADSIT is a valid deletion rationale for portals. These figures are typical of the page view ratio between articles (which show up in searches) and portals (which are excluded from searches). If the argument is valid then it supports deleting the namespace rather than being in any way specific to the beer portal. Certes (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the 106 subpages, which are leftover crud that is ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly delete any unused subpages. I admit to contributing to that rubbish heap by reworking the selected breweries section; the pages I replaced can be deleted if my edit isn't reverted. Certes (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. Just adding this line because other portals are getting closed as delete despite strong arguments for retention labelled "comment" etc. rather than "keep". Certes (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above this is not a "stale portal" which is the reasoning behind this nomination. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2024 (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.