Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in India

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Prostitution in India

The lead image is actually about Prostitution in Asia which is one of the featured articles (which features the same map in the excerpt). Another featured article is a film where the part of the article shown says nothing about this topic. Automated portal mass created without prethought from a navbox template pulling links from a template, repeating the nev box at the bottom. Absolutely useless adding nothing not found in our proper article Prostitution in India. I believe we already deleted Portal:Prostitution in Canada which had similar problems. Legacypac (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The automated process for creating portals is a useful tool for creating a starting point for a portal. Without further work anomalies such as those described above occur. I agree the portal is poor, but deletion policy WP:ATD suggests improvement rather than deletion is appropriate in these cases. On a side note, the navbox at the bottom of the page is a standard feature of portals. --John B123 (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POG portals should be about broad topics, this isn't about a particularly broad topic and as a result it's been padded out with material which isn't really relevant, such as articles about prostitution in countries other than India (Prostitution in Nepal, Prostitution in Sri Lanka), articles about films which feature prostitutes as characters, articles about notable people who worked as prostitutes at some point, even if they are entirely known for other things (Zeenat Begum) and articles about people who were mistakenly thought to be prostitutes (Devadasi). I think this stems from the fact that the portal topic isn't broad enough to sustain a portal, and even apart from that the portal is not vaguely fit for purpose and isn't being maintained by anyone. Hut 8.5 15:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you put a lot more thought into this then the user that made this in 12 seconds. Evenything you see comes from the nav box on the article, which perhaps needs a trim, but that is an editorial activity unrelated to deleting this unsuitable automatic portal. Legacypac (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although pulling "selected articles" is by default taken from the navbox at random, it can be overridden to show only the most relevant or interesting articles, the same applies to the random images. Again by default, the main image is the first image in the main article (the prostitution in Asia map in this case). This can also be overridden.

"Broad topics" is a very subjective term, largely influenced by one's personal interests. For example, some may view western films as just a genre of films so is covered by Portal:Films. Enthusiasts of the films may take the view that it's such a broad topic that there is no doubt it should its own portal.

Sure, there is an element of judgement in determining what constitutes a broad topic, but that doesn't imply the standard is meaningless. The fact that this portal was created with a load of content which is not in scope suggests that the content which was in scope was not sufficient though. Even if it were possible that a completely different portal on the same topic might be acceptable that isn't much of an argument for keeping this one. Hut 8.5 09:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that "broad topics" is meaningless, what I am trying to say is that point at which a topic become broad is subjective. Whilst "this portal was created with a load of content which is not in scope" may mean there is not enough suitable content in the topic, it may just mean the person who created it didn't really know what they were doing. My understanding from WP:ATD is that poor quality is not a reason for deletion if improvement is possible. --John B123 (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've made some changes to the portal, mainly how "Selected general articles" and "Selected images" are generated. Although there is still room for improvement, I think the issues related to content detailed above have now been addressed. --John B123 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POG says portal topics should have "enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section". Even now the featured content section is almost entirely populated with Start-class articles. There are a few with higher ratings but some of them strike me as a little dubious for inclusion here e.g. Lindsay Lohan's Indian Journey is mainly about human trafficking and Mah Laqa Bai focuses on her poetry rather than her status as a prostitute. Hut 8.5 13:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons for the consensus to delete Portal:Prostitution in Canada was that it didn't include Human trafficking in Canada or the two pieces of legislation related to trafficking, now including Lohan's documentary is questioned because it does include trafficking, or more specifically sex trafficking. It's like trying to knit fog. --John B123 (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitition and trafficking can be related topics, but I don't think an article which doesn't mention prostitutes or prostitution at all should be in scope here. Hut 8.5 15:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, but I was in a minority of one holding that opinion in the Canada discussion. --John B123 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The origin of this portal indicates that it isn't worth keeping unless there is some obvious reason why it needs keeping after all. There is nothing obviously right about this portal, and it is a narrow topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 31 March 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.