Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Culture

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. ‑Scottywong | [yak] || 22:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Culture

Abandoned portal. The sole selected article, since October 2015, is multiculturalism in Canada, which is a B-class article. You could learn more about culture by hitting the "random article" button a few times. From 2006 to 2015 the selected article was names of the Greeks, a start-class article. The aliens reading this portal must think we are a very one-dimensional species. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will examine in more detail later, but at first examination I can see this is a spectacularly bad portal, even by the abysmally low standards which MFD has seen so many times in recent months.

Note that Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Culture lists several other sub-pages which aren't used in the portal, including Portal:Culture/Selected article with seven subpages which AFAICS were all abandoned in 2008. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The portal has only one selected article because an editor supporting its deletion removed all the others. Certes (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Certes, please drop the battlefield mentality, and try a little honesty.

I did not remove all the others. As the edit summary explains, and the diff clearly shows, I reverted the portal's conversion to an automated clone of a navbox.

If you have a substantive point to make, then please make it. But if all you have to offer is maliciously fabricated distortion of reality, then please point your keyboard somewhere else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Portal:Culture looks like it could be a broad subject area like Portal:Society. In theory, it might be. However, it consists of only seven articles, all selected in 2008, semi-randomly, only one of which has been edited, and that not substantively. The portal is well-viewed for a portal at 50 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb19, but the head article had 2720 pageviews in the same period. No maintenance, inadequate coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to update the portal's selected article but the change was reverted. Clearly the portal is not abandoned. As it stands, this is a Catch-22 --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 15:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the text to Philosophy of mathematics#Platonism but linked "read more" to Ethnocentrism. What gives? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. This junk Bonsai portal has been abandoned for over a decade, save for a little one-off maintenance by passing editors, and is 12-19 articles short of POG's minimum of 20. It also has many blank or duplicate sub-pages, such as this and this. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Ancheta Wis, who (this is being generous) dumped it in June 2006, until this MfD spurred them to make two edits, one of which was reverted. While this portal pre-dates this stipulation of POG, the long-term point remains the same: this is a portal that should not exist.

It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has had over a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a low 52 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Culture had 2,554 views per day in the same period). This is a significant long-term decline from the 88 views per day it had from July 1 to Dec. 30 2015.

POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Culture has been labeled inactive since 2018 (the last editor to editor conversation was in Sep. 2015), and the portal has never been mentioned on the talk page. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Culture is not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Culture is not a broad topic? What is then? The portal for a topic being poorly maintained doesn't always mean that said topic is not broad enough. We don't nominate articles at AfD solely because they're poorly written. Geolodus (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I don't feel like participating. Geolodus (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12: Culture is not a broad enough topic. A statement for a list of interesting quotes about Wikipedia. Is that really what you believe? The problem here is that Culture is a too broad topic to make a good standalone portal using just the standard ingredients. A meta-portal leading to more focused portals would make a lot more sense, or a hybrid like Portal:Asia. I don't oppose deletion, as there isn't that much worth saving here at the moment, but there should be no prejudice against creation of a better portal. —Kusma (t·c) 13:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case I think it's Portal:Society), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Outline of culture; or

Move to WP:WikiProject:Culture/Portal (essentially to archive); or

Delete as third choice, as it does not serve a valid reader-facing function. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose re-creation per above. Culture is evidently and surprisingly not a broad topic in the specific sense meant by POG, as demonstrated by the lack of views and maintenance when not being scrutinized at MfD. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be true, in the same way that π was evidently and surprisingly not the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter in the specific sense meant by the Indiana Pi Bill. Perhaps this says more about POG than about whether the concept of culture is broad. Certes (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and we now have a consensus that POG is not an official guideline. Certes (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too broad a topic to actually be useful as a portal, plus it's abandoned anyway. Kaldari (talk) 19:10, 27 September 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.