Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mixed bag of group portals

< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Portal:BBC & Co.

edit
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 the following: Portal:Motörhead, Portal:Linkin Park, Portal:Slipknot, Portal:Oracle Corporation, Portal:SNK, Portal:Lenovo as uncontested apart from procedural grounds. Please renominate the rest individually. (I'm not going to action this debate for another day or two to hear any possible objections). MER-C 10:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:BBC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Motörhead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Linkin Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Sony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Lenovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Google (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Slipknot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:SNK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Oracle Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Sega (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Nintendo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Apple Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – Withdrawn.
Portal:Microsoft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – Withdrawn.

{{priorxfd|Portal:Microsoft}}

All prior XfDs for this page:
All prior XfDs for this page:
All MfDs for company portals:

This should be the remaining company portals. I have also included Portal:Motörhead, Portal:Linkin Park, and Portal:Slipknot. Unlike previous nominations, all but two have been maintained in the past (the exceptions are Portal:Lenovo and Portal:Oracle Corporation). The sole basis for the nomination is the limited scope of these portals.

I will begin notifying the creators of these portals to this nomination. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I was notified. I didn't create any of these portals.--Auric talk 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You made four edits to Portal:Nintendo last year that did not seem semi-automated, and I had a liberal mindset for who received notifications. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Did the previous batches of company portals consist of all automated portals? Was it a mix of automated and hand-created portals? I ask because people have been opining for deletion simply based upon portals being based upon automation, but some of these in this nomination are not, such as the BBC, Google, Nintendo and Sega portals. North America1000 04:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 
Use this time machine
and go to the 2008 BBC
- Old portal, 82 subpages, created 2006-10-13 08:32:51 by User:Unisouth. No portal on a single company Portal:BBC
- Old portal, 34 subpages, created 2007-07-08 21:25:49 by User:Arundhati lejeune. No portal on a single company Portal:Motörhead
- Old portal, 34 subpages, created 2008-09-06 16:40:39 by User:Elvenwong50. No portal on a single company Portal:Linkin Park
- Old portal, 14 subpages, created 2008-04-18 07:39:42 by User:Ultraviolet scissor flame. No portal on a single company Portal:Sony
- Old portal, 110 subpages, created 2009-08-11 14:12:23 by User:Wild mine. No portal on a single company Portal:Google
- Old portal, 36 subpages, created 2008-02-01 05:07:57 by User:Blackngold29. No portal on a single company Portal:Slipknot
- Old portal, 25 subpages, created 2012-10-21 20:54:36 by User:Georgethewriter. No portal on a single company Portal:SNK
- Old portal, 31 subpages, created 2006-06-21 21:48:09 by User:Elven6. No portal on a single company Portal:Sega
- Old portal, 61 subpages, created 2006-04-25 02:17:09 by User:Tree Biting Conspiracy. No portal on a single company Portal:Nintendo
Moreover, saying there's certainly room for expansion is nothing but the usual fallacy. The question is not about the possibility of some entity Who Will Come From the Stars and do the job in some unpredictable future. A portal like Portal:BBC is supposed to be a useful navigation tool. Here, be means being right now. And this is blatantly false. User:Espresso Addict tells us I've not examined the other portals. At facial value, this is surely true. But this seems to imply: "I've carefully examined the BBC portal". And this is less likely. In fact, the last editorial edits to the snippets of this portal are either 2008 or 2010 (see below). We even have this marvelous one: Specially built for the BBC and opened in 1960, BBC Television Centre in London is home to much of the BBC's television output. Studio TC1, at 995 square metres, is the second largest television studio in Britain. The corporation has plans to dispose of the building by 2015. We should have plans to dispose of this kind of cadavers before 20015.
date of the last editorial edit of all the 10+11+12 subpages of Portal:BBC
BBC/Selected article/01 2008
BBC/Selected article/02 2008
BBC/Selected article/03 2008
BBC/Selected article/04 2008
BBC/Selected article/05 2008
BBC/Selected article/06 2008
BBC/Selected article/07 2008
BBC/Selected article/08 2008
BBC/Selected article/09 2009
BBC/Selected article/10 2009
BBC/Selected building/01 2010 ... by 2015
BBC/Selected building/02 2011
BBC/Selected building/03 2010
BBC/Selected building/04 2008
BBC/Selected building/05 2008
BBC/Selected building/06 2008
BBC/Selected building/07 2008
BBC/Selected building/08 2010
BBC/Selected building/09 2010
BBC/Selected building/10 2013
BBC/Selected building/11 2011
BBC/Selected picture/01 2008
BBC/Selected picture/02 2010
BBC/Selected picture/03 2008
BBC/Selected picture/04 2010
BBC/Selected picture/05 2008
BBC/Selected picture/06 2008
BBC/Selected picture/07 2008
BBC/Selected picture/08 2010
BBC/Selected picture/09 2008
BBC/Selected picture/10 2010
BBC/Selected picture/11 2014
BBC/Selected picture/12 2010
Pldx1 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I spent at least 16 minutes assessing this portal, probably more (I open all MfD'd portals that aren't clearly just automated in tabs and look at them all before starting to comment); I wish I could spend more time but there are so many suggested for deletion these weeks that there aren't enough waking hours in the day to do a decent job. I noted that I hadn't looked at the others at all for the closing admin because they should not assume that I endorse deletion of the others. I looked briefly at the set of article extracts, the history and the code, and paged through the building images (where this mistake was found) to check none of the images had been deleted but didn't read the captions. If one needs to spend more time than that on individual nominations within a bulk set, then the rate of deletion nomination needs to slow right down to make that at all feasible.
Your (presumably bot-generated) dates are of limited value; there's no obvious reason necessarily to change the caption of, say, a picture added in 2008. Generally it still depicts now what it depicted then, though people die and buildings change in use, and possibly more thought needs to be taken as to how to future proof them. (XXX at yyy date remains true, even if the building burns down or the subject dies.)
I have corrected the specific error that you noted, thanks for drawing it to the community's attention -- but I'm not planning to do any major work on any portal up for deletion, and certainly not in the present climate where it's likely to be deleted even if one were to succeed in bringing it up to a high standard within the time frame. There needs to be a mechanism for advertising under-maintained portals for a period before suggesting deletion, so that maintainers can be sought; akin to the two-stage featured article review process. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict: I have no clue as to whether you would be surprised by this statement, but I would agree with you for most of what you said. I have pretty meticulously reviewed these portals before I nominated them. I did not nominate these portals because they were unmaintained. In fact, I stated as much in my nomination: The sole basis for the nomination is the limited scope of these portals. On the portal issue, I consider myself a moderate. I very clearly wanted to maintain Portal:Webcomics, but it was deleted nonetheless. However, the speed to which things are being nominated is not the issue. It is mostly the fact we have no clear guidelines for this matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, MJL. I don't agree that the BBC has limited scope, nor do I think it is similar to the companies with which you have bundled it. I do agree that clear guidelines would be helpful; I feel this mad scramble to delete everything in sight under any available rationale, when no-one knows or agrees (or in some cases cares) where the boundaries lie, is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and counter to the RfC last year, which (whatever it did conclude) did not conclude that all portals should be deleted willy-nilly. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what to say to that, Espresso. Portal:CERN was deleted with in the first batch of company portals. One of the ones I bundled, Portal:Google, has been almost consistently maintained since its creation in 2009. I put up some of our highest quality portals if you ask me. The way Portal:Nintendo used to look was great. I think that Portal:Microsoft has a breathtakingly stunning design. If there was ever a good group to be with, I would say it was a combination of the ones I nominated.
One estimate I made put the total number of individual portal nominations at 1,588 (faulty number because that includes redirects). The ones that get bundled are both good and bad. It saves the community time from rehashing the same arguments over and over again, but it can come at the expense of a more in-depth view.
When the guidelines are put forward, I suspect many of these bundled ones will be the first to get undeleted per the criteria we come up with. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't CERN automated from a navbox though? The MfD states it was. These are not. If I had more time & energy I'd review more of these; Google in particular might possibly be a sufficiently broad topic because of their AI research. But there's just too many this week, and I don't quite feel strongly enough atm.
I wouldn't hold your breath either for guidelines or for undeletions. I suspect it is more likely that the entirety of portal space (save the main page & portal current events) will go. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those can be deleted too. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On strike. Adding new lines to an already released list is a repeated annoyance. This is the reason why I systematically add the name of the portal to each and every evaluation I made. Nothing else to add. Pldx1 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on additions. Purely on a procedural note, adding new items to a bundle after the first flush of people have commented is disruptive, even where participants are pinged: most people read MfD from the top, and ignore entries that they have already checked. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pldx1 and Espresso Addict: This has been noted for the future. My apologies to both of you for the disruption. CoolSkittle, I have stricken the relevant additions and withdrawn those nominations. Sorry again, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 
BBC Broadcasting House 2013.
Obviously too recent
Not convinced the BBC, whilst technically a corporation under a Royal charter and with its own governing board/trust, as a largely (essentially) tax-funded national broadcasting body that creates/broadcasts free public service television & radio, falls squarely under the definition of "company". I don't know if there are any direct equivalents in other countries? As the oldest broadcaster in the world, and one of the largest, it has a special significance. And I know "I like it" arguments aren't particularly helpful but... as a Brit, it feels borderline offensive to suggest deletion of something related to the BBC when I wouldn't feel at all bothered by such a suggestion relating to a hundred-year-old British company. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nintendo Recognized content

  Featured articles

  Former featured articles

  Featured lists

  Former featured lists

  Good articles

  Former good articles

  Good article nominees

  Did you know? articles

Main page featured articles

Main page featured lists

In the News articles

– North America1000 04:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. The nominator's decision to chuck in two bands in with a set of companies if very odd, and doesn't reach help a clear decision. There seems to be a strong case for considering the BBC separately to commercial companies. Yes, this is a trainwreck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with no prejudice to renomination with better bundling. While two have been withdrawn, I think there's still scope for a decent argument based on WP:POG for Google and Nintendo. SITH (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • About procedure - The point to discuss here is not "how many Great Articles belong to such or such topic". Nintendo has 224 of them. Small player. BBC has 31+16+157 of them. Small player. Be More Modest and look at Dungeons & Dragons. And don't even argue: this is not the point. What is to discussed is (1) are these portals policy compliant ; (2) are these portals useful as navigation tools (guideline) ? At Dungeons & Dragons, the portal receives 12 views per day. One third of the worse score of any stub article that belongs to this project. Is someone pretending that BBC or Nintendo behaves otherwise ? At [wmflabs] you can check that absolutely no reader cares about these portals (better use the logarithmic scale! ). No writer cares either, as can be seen when looking at how old are the snippets. User TTH was editorially right when nuking all these cadavers, but wrong when replacing them by automated shit generators. And there we are: while intended to provide a navigation tool, these portals don't. Splitting this discussion into individual ones will only result in expanding the duration of the missa pro defunctis, but will not resurrect any of these portals. On the other hand, separating "In Memoriam BBC 2008, When We Were Younger" from "In Memoriam Nintendo, When We Were Younger" could perhaps give some peace of mind to those who require it to let the past slip out of their hands. Pldx1 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pldx1: It may be worth noting that, unlike wp:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sims (2nd nomination), I did not revert to the pre-automated state. No one has even bothered to do this for Portal:Nintendo yet. The maintainers didn't even notice the change it seems... :( –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is still a train wreck, but User:Northamerica1000 managed to wreck the train on the MFD main line by inserting the name of WikiProject:Nintendo, punctuated to be magic words. This managed to confuse the numbering of sections on the MFD main line. I had to turn off the magic words. This was a good-faith error, but a real error. Please do not put anything in an MFD that will cause large-scale transclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BBC on the basis stated above--it does look like it need re-vitalising, so it should be kept and revialized. Also Keep Google, Sony, and Nintendo on the basis of the same arguemtn as Appple. These are more than miscellaneous random companies. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear User:DGG. When you are saying Portal:BBC should be revitalized, are you saying that you will do the job, or are you only saying that someone else should do the job, but not you, who have more important things to do than updating a portal without readers? Pldx1 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot work on everything, so I concentrate on articles and drafts. Even so, at my level of activity, I can fix only a few of the thousands I spot that need fixing. I have never actually worked on a portal, or done anything substantial about categories or other navigational devices. Nor do I work with wikidata, or images. Nor do I try to fix things at CCI or SPA or LTA , though I will sometimes help there if checkuser is needed. None of this means I shouldn't give opinions on what needs to be done. We all rely on each other. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all None of these companies meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BBC and Google - each of these has a significant number of related articles so a good candidate for a portal. Might need some work due to the method of creation, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. I've no comment on the other portals listed; my preference is "Keep" but the scope for some of them might not warrant a portal of their own. WaggersTALK 11:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, User:Waggers should work harder. Using his usual stereotypical sentence Might need some work due to the method of creation, as if Portal:BBC and Portal:Google were automated portals, and as if that was used as a rationale to delete says much. These two portals are old abandoned things from the past, created by the good old methods of this so glorious past of 2008. They were not nuked by TTH and quite nothing has ever changed to these sets of outdated snippets. I have already given shameful samples of expiry. Even 2013 is too recent there. It remains might need some work. This work will never been done, too bad for readers sufficiently naive to open a Wikipedia portal. In any case, there are so few of them. Pldx1 (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted I haven't been following much of what has been happening with Portals but this MfD seems like a trainwreck. I'm not sure why there are three portals that are not companies here since this is supposed to be "the remaining company portals". Last time I checked Slipknot was a band not a company. I'm breaking my votes up based on the portals listed here as I do not feel all should be deleted.
    • Strong Keep for BBC, Google, Nintendo, Sega and Sony -- I agree with the keep reasons above for BBC, Google and Nintendo. I also included Sega and Sony with this group as I feel they satisfy WP:POG.
    • Neutral for Motörhead, Linkin Park and Slipknot -- These should have been listed in their own MfD with a clear reasoning specific to them as they are not companies.
    • Delete for Lenovo, SNK and Oracle Corporation -- These three company portals I feel is more limited in scope than the others I mentioned in my Keep vote and may not meet WP:POG. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 11:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of Companies
It was not helpful to combine 10 companies with 3 bands. However, this table shows the average daily pageviews between 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2019. These are old-style manual portals except for Lenovo and Oracle. Lenovo appears to be a single-navbox portal, created by a member of the portal platoon. Pageview metrics are not available for Oracle due to a name change and analyst limitations.
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Notes Percent
BBC 29 6,679 230.3 0.43%
Google 56 21,052 375.9 0.27%
Apple Inc. 40 12,099 302.5 0.33%
Microsoft 73 7,149 97.9 1.02%
Sony 11 3,466 315.1 Originator inactive since 2008. 0.32%
Lenovo 3 2,336 778.7 Single navbox portal, developed Dec 2018. 0.13%
SNK 8 342 42.8 Originator inactive since Oct 2018 2.34%
Oracle Metrics unavailable.
Sega 12 1,852 154.3 Originator inactive since 2012. 0.65%
Nintendo 42 4,454 106.0 Originator inactive since 2010. 0.94%
None of the companies have more than 100 daily pageviews. None of the companies have more than 3% as many pageviews for the portal as for the article.
Analysis of Music
The following table shows the average daily pageviews between 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2019 for all music portals that have been considered so far. I am not making any claim that this table lists all bands, or all bands that have portals. If your favorite band isn't shown, either it doesn't have a portal, or its portal hasn't been debated yet (or sneaked past me).
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Notes Percent
Eminem 13 19,275 1482.7 0.07%
Rihanna 16 14,713 919.6 0.11%
Taylor Swift 9 17,722 1969.1 0.05%
The Clash 7 2,407 343.9 0.29%
Adele 14 7,403 528.8 Second nomination 0.19%
Justin Bieber 18 18,943 1052.4 Did something happen on 8 Feb? Accesses peak then. 0.10%
Rush 9 3,334 370.4 0.27%
Neil Young 8 5,806 725.8 0.14%
Pink Floyd 13 8,655 665.8 0.15%
The Rolling Stones 9 7,314 812.7 0.12%
Led Zeppelin 14 8,103 578.8 0.17%
Michael Jackson 24 28,527 1188.6 0.08%
Jackson Family 85 3,956 46.5 2.15%
Janet Jackson 7 5,926 846.6 0.12%
Shania Twain 12 4,927 410.6 Median 8. Portal access has weird peak 6 Jan. 0.24%
Frank Zappa 8 4,201 525.1 0.19%
Aerosmith 10 3,224 322.4 0.31%
Avril Lavigne 9 10,197 1133.0 Peak on 15 Feb in article access. 0.09%
Queen (band) 50 59,785 1195.7 Article and portal accesses peak on 25 Feb. 0.08%
Bob Dylan 15 9,373 624.9 0.16%
The Supremes 7 2,437 348.1 0.29%
The Beatles 15 14,088 939.2 0.11%
U2 9 3,993 443.7 0.23%
Grateful Dead 23 2,898 126.0 0.79%
Iron Maiden 11 3,877 352.5 0.28%
The Kinks 8 1,987 248.4 0.40%
Elvis Presley 12 24,375 2031.3 0.05%
Miles Davis 7 3,603 514.7 0.19%
Whitney Houston 7 12,726 1818.0 0.06%
AC/DC 10 7,542 754.2 0.13%
Motörhead 8 2,182 272.8 0.37%
Linkin Park 8 5,300 662.5 Originator made 4 edits in 2008 including setting up portal. 0.15%
Slipknot 8 4,324 540.5 Originator inactive since 2016 0.19%
The three bands that are listed last in the table are included in this nomination. They each have only 8 daily pageviews.
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all including Google, Microsoft, and Apple. It is a bad idea to have portals for individual companies, as these portals rather look like advertisement boards. Except probably BBC since that is not precisely a privately held company. SD0001 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Mixed_bag_of_group_portals&oldid=906942707"