Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Gullah

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. Seems like the consensus is that WP:POG's part about "broad topic" is not met, and also concerns (although more ambiguous) about the quality of the portal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Gullah

A non-portal on a topic of marginal scope.

This portal was created[1] in August 2018‎ by Senegambianamestudy (talk · contribs), as a manual portal with curated subpages. It is one of the newest creations of that type which I have seen, and it offers several boxes: Selected article, Selected biography, History and Culture, DYK, quotes, and a selected picture.

However, the purge button has no effect, because as Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Gullah shows, there is only one of each type of page, so there is no rotation of content. The short "Films and TV" section is mostly unlinked, and the publications section contains only two items.

This isn't really a portal, just the skeleton of a portal. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". In this case the B-class head article with its comprehensive navbox Template:Gullah topics is significantly more enhanced than the portal. If there is room for a decent portal on the Gullag people, this isn't it.

I made a quick attempt to assess Category:Gullah to see whether there is enough scope for a viable portal, and I have some doubts. I excluded Category:Gullah country because it includes the whole of both Category:Regions of South Carolina‎ and Category:Georgia (U.S. state)‎, and that left me with a set of about 70 articles which I filtered by WikiProject assessment, keeping only those rated FA, GA, A, B, C or list-class. That left only 15 articles:

It may be that some of the geographical articles I excluded give sufficient coverage of Gullah people and are of high enough quality to justify inclusion in a portal, but I haven't checked that. I think the answer to viability is "probably not", but I don't rule it out the possibility that it might just about satisfy the WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT without prejudice to recreating a curated portal which is not a redundant fork, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time on quality, scope, etc'. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From the nominator's analysis, the topic appears marginal but automated searches don't always turn up all the usable articles, either because they are miscategorised or misassessed. (I note also that the nominator is leaving out start-class articles, which are not precluded by policy, and have sometimes progressed to C class since assessment.) Interested in a comment from the creator, Senegambianamestudy, who appears to be active. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the portal is not a fork of the navbox and it has a list of what you can do, etc which encourages article creation. Also, you have left out many start class start articles which you have not included. Further, why would you "exclude" anything if you are going to nominate something for deletion? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Senegambianamestudy: straw man there. Nobody claims it's a fork of the navbox; my nomination points out that the B-class head article with its comprehensive navbox Template:Gullah topics is significantly more enhanced than the portal. A navbox fork might even be better than this static page.

I excluded topics which are likely to be of low relevance to an overview of the topic. If you look at the list, an individual assessment would have excluded even more if I had done anything other than a minimum automated check: e.g. Michelle Obama (descended from the Gullah people of South Carolina's Low Country region) doesn't really belong here, and nor does History of the United States (way too broad) or Catherine Yronwode (doesn't even mention Gullah) or Joe Frazier (doesn't even mention Gullah). That's down to 12 articles.

However you slice this topic, I don't see a broad topic area as required by the WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". If you disagree, please produce a list which shows a wide range of articles which are genuinely closely associated with Gullah, to establish that this is a broad topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Senegambianamestudy: Thanks for responding. Can you list (eg on the MfD talk page) at least 20 articles that could be included in the portal? ie Reasonably closely related to the topic, and preferably at least C class, or starts that could reasonably be promoted to C class. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I intend to take another look at this MFD within a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon, is 6 days "a few"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrownHairedGirl - It's a few days if the MFD is still open, with or without my being pinged about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Created 2018-08-18 19:58:23 by User:Senegambianamestudy. Supposed to be a multipage portal. But quite a year later, only provides ONE of each in it's windows. The only way to tweak the "broad topic" requirement would have been to provide a broad slideshow. Portal:Gullah. Pldx1 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - We have a maintainer who has been making a good-faith effort to maintain the portal and hasn't kept it up, and an interesting topic that is neither overly broad nor overly narrow, but not ideally broad. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This subject area does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:39, 13 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.