Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Border (2nd nomination)

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 debate was Delete - for the reasons best stated by Suntag, though not being associated with a WikiProject is certainly not grounds for deletion, it's just a should and there are top level portals. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Border

This page has been nominated once before (here). The result was "No consensus". The previous rationale for deletion, by Eleland still stands: This portal is not chiefly about borders; it's a clever POV-fork in portal space. The main article Border is featured, and a few links to List of land border lengths, etc, but the prominently featured content is along the lines of: Tom Tancredo, Eurabia (with a featured flag madeup by the portal author), Mexica Movement, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Jihad Watch, these are immigration issues, not border issues, and they all document anti-immigration POVs. In addition, I'd note that a) the "Keep" votes last time included two sockpuppets and one of their sockpuppeteers; and b) no improvement has been made in the intervening eight months. -- Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - not appropriate for a portal. bd2412 T 17:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The editor who seems most involved has several other Portals he has worked on. Nor do they appear to be POV-forks. That you feel 8 weeks is enough for notable improvement means that you made no attempt to improve it either. Portals, as far as I can tell, are still in their infancy here, and deleting them for "needs improvement" is insufficient to me. Collect (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

a) eight months, not weeks. b) I only discovered the portal very recently, and judged it to be well beyond needing a little improvement. It seems immaterial what else the editor responsible has worked on. Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Issues seem to run deeper than "Needs improvement". Seems to lack a clear focus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete seems to lack proper focus and contains mixed content. feydey (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't have any interesting content, just a random collection. Rror (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - has pretty clear POV issues. I'm not convinced this is an appropriate subject for a portal, beyond as an excuse for POV pushing. Terraxos (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep there are only political correctness reasons to delete this portal. I was threatened by the Jehovas witnesses because of this portal.Cmmmm 11:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if you you were threatened, how is that relevant for the deletion? Rror (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so you and your sockpuppet said in the previous discussion; but I think there are reasons of relevance and NPOV as well. As Rror, I think that a religious group not liking it is neither a reason to delete nor to keep. Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I was threatened by the Watchtower and reacted strongly against them. I apologize to anybody who hates my edits. How would you react if you were threatened. I even agree that this portal should be deleted if nobody were threatened.Cmmmm 13:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - The standards against which a portal may be reviewed is at Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. Since the scope covered by this portal is vast, the portal does not help others to browse on a particular subject. Since this portal has only one talk page[1] with only one post, this portal does not have enough interest to sustain the portal through consensus. Portals should not be a vehicle for advocacy, and from the nomination, the few posters to the portal front page,[2] and vague scope of this portal, it appears that this portal is a vehicle for advocacy. A portal should be associated with a WikiProject. There is no Wikipedia:WikiProject Border and there appears to have been no efforts to work with any WikiProject to obtain a supply of new material for the portal for the portal. Rather than presenting quality content articles above a Start-class, the portal appears to feature selected content irrespective of the class of the content: Border, the flag ship article of the portal, has no WikiProject listed on its talk page and has no class rating. Mexico–United States border is unrated. Mexica Movement is unrated and is not even mentioned in the Border article. A portal should not cover a subject matter scope for which it is unable to represent fairly. Category:Borders appears to be a top level category having a significant number of subcategories, which have multi level subcategories of their own.[3] A portal should not focus on less than all the subject matter scope meant to be covered by the portal. -- Suntag ☼ 03:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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.