Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Poverty

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) 01:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Poverty

A newly-created (on 24 Oct 2019) navbox-clone automated portal, just like thousands of spam portals created in late 2018/early 2019 by User:The Transhumanist (TTH) and his acolytes. Most of that portalspam was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two), and the rest in a series of follow-up nominations. The first of those MFDs was exeptionally well-attended, and both showed an overwheming consensus to delete this type of spam portal.

In this case the portal draws its selected articles list solely from the navbox Template:Poverty, of which it is therefore simply a bloated and redundant fork.

It draws its set of images solely from those used in the head article Poverty, which again adds no value. Those same set of images is avaialble to logged-out readers of the head article (i.e. the vast majority of readers) as a full-screen slideshow. Try it youtself by right-clicking on this link to Poverty, selecting "open in private window" or "open in incognito window", and then click on any image. That full-screen gallery is vastly better than the set of small-sized images on the portal.

Note that this portal was created by a new editor, who I am sure was acting in good faith when they used {{subst:Basic portal start page}} to make this pseudo-portal. But to prevent further such msistaken creations, Template:Basic portal start page shoud be deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion: WP:TFD#Template:Basic portal start page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Vastly inferior, and forked, version of the much larger, well structured, actively edited, Main Article and large series of Navboxes for topic-Poverty. Have further concerns on the direction and rationale for this portal having read the creator’s user page. Britishfinance (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Improve It's an insult to everyone that this portal doesn't exist yet, though I didn't realize there were already better templates to form the basis, and that one didn't need to be made. It would be scandalous if the Wikimedia Foundation failed to support efforts to maximize the use of its platform to ensure everyone is educated on this most important topic. This portal was created during a Wikipedia editing community collaboration. I encourage everyone to not just improve this portal but to devote themselves to improving content that can best equip people to make a difference. I also encourage you to host similar events in your own communities. John 14:23 (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @John 14:23, firstly I urge you to take a long read of WP:NPOV, and then follow it. I see strong indications in your comment that you haven't been working within that policy, and your highly partisan userpage was further evidence of that. (I trimmed some of its excesses.[1]). Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Wikipedia is not a place to write great wrongs.

Secondly, the way to improve Wikipedia's coverage of any topic is by building encyclopedic content. And content is in articles, not in portals. Portals just are a navigational tool, and they are barely uses: in Jan–Sept 2019, the median viewing rate for portals was only 22 views per day. In the same period, the head article poverty averaged 2,434 daily views. That's over 100 times as many views. Even a sub-topic gets way more views that the portal, e.g. Feminization of poverty gets a median of 159 views/day, and Relative deprivation averages 165 views/day.

So if you do want to educate more readers, improve articles. That's what readers actually read. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl The only partisanship here is for the Wikimedia Foundation mission "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."([2]) I intend to try to promote Wikipedia Editing Events in various communities to bring people together and further that mission.

Portals can be a tool to engage and encourage editors and to help people grasp the extent of the content now available. If there's any subject that should be of concern to those with the time and intellectual space to consider making a contribution, it would be an issue like poverty. I encourage everyone to make a contribution. It looks like there's a lot of work to do. John 14:23 (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John, your words above and on your userpage outright contradict your denial of partisanship.

As to your claim that portals can be a tool to engage and encourage editors and to help people grasp the extent of the content now available … that's demonstrably not the case, because hardly anyone reads them. That was the theory behind them, but it has failed in all except a v few cases.

In this case, the pseudo-portal which you created is just a bloated clone of a inadequate navbox which you created.

As to encouraging everyone to make a contribution, I note that you have made only 280 edits in 9½ years. Not the best platform from which to be an evangelist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl "Partisanship" has no meaning without context. With regard to Wikipedia guidelines, "partisanship" refers to article content, not having a preference to take the next breath or not.

You have stated here that I've created no content on this subject, and you are correct, so partisanship just doesn't come into play. I'm trying to organize the existing content so I can host editing events around this topic as well as facilitate contributions by everyone. Perhaps I need to create a Wikiproject as well. Maybe you should take the lead on making sure Wikipedia is maximally equipping everyone with an internet connection to be informed about this critical topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John 14:23 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, John, I did not state you have created no content on this subject. Please don't put words in my mouth.

And sure, I'll give everyone on earth an internet connection. But first I gotta make world peace, which is probably gonna take a few hours, so the 'net-for-all may not be ready before breakfast. Sorry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Comment - I will try to explain my view on whether to keep Portal:Poverty in terms of my outlook as a Christian editor of Wikipedia. I consider myself to be a left-wing Catholic, which means that I believe that Christians, in accordance with the social teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, should try to make the world more hospitable as individuals and as citizens of nations to reflect the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46. My concern about this portal is that I concur with the concept that Wikipedia is not here to Right Great Wrongs. Normally that policy is applicable to editors who seek to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to remedy perceived injustices or wrongs that other editors consider to be fringe or even wrong-headed. However, in this case, the proponent of this portal is seeking to use the portal to improve the world in accordance with Christian teachings. In other words, global poverty really is a great wrong, and should be righted by Christians and other persons of good will. But is Portal:Poverty an appropriate way to right this wrong? I have stated my position on uses of Wikipedia for socially desirable purposes other than the extension of human knowledge in an essay on socially desirable purposes. I respectfully submit that a Wikipedia portal is not an appropriate way to try to address global poverty. First, Wikipedia presents knowledge from a neutral point of view. That is non-negotiable, and knowledge is and should be an end in itself. Christians can look to John 8:32, "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free". Non-Christians can look to other religious or philosophical affirmations of the value of knowledge in itself. Using Wikipedia to achieve socially desirable purposes other than its own socially desirable purpose of extending knowledge will interfere with the extension of knowledge. Besides, as hundreds of MFD discussions have pointed out, portals are not an effective use of Wikipedia, let alone being an effective way to use Wikipedia for a social objective. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - As noted above, Portal:Poverty is a misdirection of the resources of Wikipedia and not an effective way to address the problem of global poverty. Editors who are interested in the noble objective of using Wikipedia to reduce poverty should work on the improvement of neutral articles on poverty and related subjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this type of portal is clearly deprecated and is also totally redundant and useless, as explained above.
There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, like an article is, since they are for navigation instead. It would therefore be improper to use rationales meant for keeping articles to argue that this unneeded navigation device should be kept. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. The community's consensus not to delete all portals is not a consensus to keep all portals; instead they are to be evaluated individually, as is being done here. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the highly detailed and thorough investigation of the portal by the nominator, @BrownHairedGirl, and Crossroads. There is a long-standing consensus that spam portals like this have no place on Wikipedia and add nothing for our readers. This portal should have never been created, and Wikipedia is not the place to push personal points of view. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:57, 1 November 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.