Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics

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: keep. Killiondude (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics

This problematic table is prone to becoming continuously outdated, and outdated versions of it are presently being shown to users at MfD in a manner that provides a false representation compared to the actual present state of portals.

The table's creator has not maintained it, so other editors have had to update it to prevent users from being shown inaccurate information regarding the actual state of portals. Example diffs include: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

Unfortunately, outdated versions of the table are presently being used at MfD discussions, such as at the MfD discussion for Portal:Massachusetts (diff).

Use of outdated versions of the table in MfD discussions taints the discussions with highly erroneous information.

Delete - Per all of the above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator is making an incorrect statement about these tables in saying that an unmaintained version of the table is being presented in MFD discussions. I am not presenting information from this table in MFD discussions. I have a Microsoft Access database of portal metrics which I maintain on either of two personal Windows computers, and the database is maintained. The viewing rates are dated, and so those do not need to be updated. Any information that is presented in any MFDs is accurate to the best of my knowledge, and, if it is not correct, I am willing to address its accuracy during the MFD discussion. The statement that this table is being used to provide information in MFD discussions is incorrect. That information is provided from a personal database, and I check its accuracy before presenting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as originator of the page that has been nominated for deletion. If the community would prefer not to have this information, which is intended to be accurate, available in project space, I have no objection to deleting this particular page (or the Australian or Canadian subnational portal metrics pages). Deleting this page will not change the information that is presented in MFD discussions, which is always accurate to the best of my knowledge, and I am always willing to discuss its accuracy. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a vindictive nomination, and does not affect my collection of data in my database, but I acknowledge the right of the community to decide whether a copy of this information is displayed in projet space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon::

You then also need to please update your database to present correct information.
For example, the Colorado entry of your table at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Massachusetts stating "No maintenance since 2012. No articles." (diff) is wholly false. Note that per some of the diffs provided in the nomination (diff, diff), this is just not the case at all.
You should either please fix the entries in your table at the MfD nomination or remove the table. In its present state, it is misleading.
I don't have access to your personal database to make other corrections for you.
Also, this is not a "vindictive" nomination whatsoever; it is based on real, pressing concerns, about real errors. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A transparently vindictive, misconceived nomination by an editor (Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)) whose antics include:

making a huge drama cased by their complete failure to understand basic issues of statistics, and even claimed that aggregation of data over a particular time frame is not a statistic
still seeming not to understand that the stats for a period in the past don't change
repeatedly disrupting multiple MFDs by responding to an accurate sets of stats for a given period by citing a figure from a different period, calculated on a different basis (specifically, given the daily average views for each of a set of pages, measured across a consistent time period, NA1K was repeatedly trying to contradict them by pointing to total pageviews for a different period, of different length).
being a vocal defender of almost unused, severely neglected junk portals, and clearly prefering to suppress facts which they find inconvenient in their weird quest to continue to lure readers to almost unused, severely neglected Rube Goldberg machine junk portals
Removing portals from Category:All portals because it was "used by deletionists"
Proposing the deletion of Category:Abandoned country portals because they didn't like abandoned portals being identified.
Repeatedly showing an unwillingness or inability to distinguish between maintenance of a portals' content and tweaks to its display
... and now hilariously denying the transparent vindictiveness of this nominations despite their track record of vindictiveness

I have never seen such a sustained effort in denialism on en.wp, and the only thing that comes close to it is the less prolific denialism of some of NA1K's fellow portal fans.

However, it would help if @Robert McClenon would clarify the scope of this page (and any others like it) simply by noting what period is covered by the stats provided, and preferably by linking the stats to the relevant stats query.

Note that I would be very happy for this page to be deleted if there was a plausible case that it serves no useful purpose, or if it is unlikely to be get any needed improvements. However, NA1K repeatedly claims at MFD that WP:Deletion policy requires that even long-abandoned junk portals should be retained. If NA1K actually believed any of the assertions in their MFD contributions, then NA1K would instead be demanding that this page be retained if there is any theoretical possibility of it being fixed, even if the real possibility was near-zero. Instead, NA1K is outraged at the removal of abandoned junk portals which are presented to readers, but determined to nuke an inadequately labelled page in project space. YCMTSU. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Northamerica1000 wrote: "You should either please fix the entries in your table at the MfD nomination or remove the table." I see that there were already edits made to the table on 4 October and 5 October. If NA1k wanted me to make changes to the table, that desire was not communicated before nominating the table for deletion. It isn't clear why the table is being nominated for deletion when it is also being updated by the same editors. I am not arguing in favor of keeping the page, but I am stating puzzlement about whether the objective of NA1k is the improvement of the page or the deletion of the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC) J[reply]
Keep. Serves a valid project-related purpose, assessing some portals. The nominator makes a valid point about out-of-date data. The solution to this is to date all transient data. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Out of date information, ~~I see this as harmful as we have the same issues with out of date things on portals.~~ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No the same. Portals are reader-facing pages, this is in projectspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page then either needs to be updated or disused in future deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not taken the time to examine the details, but I support archiving as "out-of-date" until fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My understanding is that this is a project-related tool to help with MfD discussions of state portals. If its information is incorrect than it can be updated as it is not a complex table. It seems from the above discussions, that others have been updating it, and ultimately anybody can edit it. Inaccuracy is not a reason to delete any article in Wikipedia (tagging is allowed) per WPNOTCLEANUP, and the table is not a WP:TNT candidate. Britishfinance (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrownHairedGirl's analysis of the troubling issues surrounding this nomination. This page and a few others created by Robert McClenon are merely a service to transparent discussion in the community, because their existence makes it easier to follow some arguments commonly used in deletion discussions. There's no benefit in forcing this information to be only on Robert McClenon's hard disk. They could be moved to subpages of a project or user page, to be easier to find, but that's not an argument for deletion. Nemo 08:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – So, this table and the table at the MfD discussion are separate, one on a Wiki page and the one provided at the MfD discussion from a user's personal database. All right then, but this was not declared at the MfD discussion. At the MfD discussion, no baseline dates were provided in the initial table (diff), and as such, users are quite likely to assume that data as being current, despite that content in its Comments column was quite outdated compared to the updates that I added to the Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics page. So, the user who provided the initial table at the MfD discussion has since added a "Revised US State Portals" section to the discussion that presents users with more up-to-date information in the Comments column and added baseline dates (diff). All right then. That's great. The concern from the start was that users at deletion discussions were being presented with outdated information in the Comments column about various portals compared to their actual states, which they were. So, I'm fine with tables being used at MfD, but please include the baseline dates, so users are able to see the time period the data pertains to, please try to keep the comments column data up-to-date, and please declare that the table is from a personal database if applicable. Otherwise, users may be misled to believe that outdated data from months ago pertains to the present state of portals. Thanks to any and all who may utilize tables at MfD for your consideration regarding this matter, and please don't take it personally. Also, for what it's worth, I am not planning on continuously maintaining the Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics page, and it is already outdated yet again per recent reversions that have occurred to some portals. At the very least the recent reversions and the effects of them should also be denoted in the Comments column on the page at this time. So, any volunteers to update the page again? I have no interest in continuously having to maintain this page. Hopefully someone else does, because the page is already becoming what it was before, a problematic table, because it is prone to becoming continuously outdated. For more context, please see Wikipedia talk:US State Portal Metrics. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks @Northamerica1000: Obviously such tables should not be used in an MfD if they are misleading or out of date (unless the date issue is at least specified and highlighted). However, for those of us who have not been involved in the "thick" of the portal debates (I have only just read WP:VPPR#Proposal to delete Portal space this morning, having been made aware of it yesterday), is there a specific column/data item that is problematic here and about which there is division (or is it the whole table)? Britishfinance (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Britishfinance It seems obvious to me too, but others have different viewpoints. That's okay. The Comments column on the Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics page is now outdated again. Recently some portals listed on the page were reverted in a manner that removed a significant amount of information from them. As I have stated, I don't want to have to continuously update the page, so hopefully someone else will someday. Fact is, if people want a page prone to becoming continuously outdated around, then so be it. Also, I don't view this matter as part of the "portal debates" at all; my nomination and commentary here is based upon the validity and feasibility of this page itself, or lack thereof. That's it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understand Northamerica1000 and thanks for that - it makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Britishfinance and other keep votes above. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:47, 16 October 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.