Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions

Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This useless portal was attracting terrorist POV edits for a while. Now no one cares about it, except for strange recent edits like adding an empty "Things you can do" box. What would you put in that box? Blow yourself up, behead hostages, destroy 5000 year old art... Portals are not used much and this one is just a bad idea. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We should be phasing out portals because they are redundant to the rest of Wikipedia's content and not particularly helpful to users. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If there are problems with bad edits, then this should be protected, not deleted. There is obviously a lot of material that could go into this portal, so it's maintainable.

@Metropolitan90: well we aren't phasing out portals. You can chose to fight your battle one portal at a time irrespective of the concerns presented in the nomination, or you can argue based on policy and guidelines. To me this portal seems to meet WP:PORTG.

Also, Legacypac, that "joke" about the ToDo box was inappropriate. You and I both know what the box is for. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist activities? I don't know. Thanks for the link. "Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance." I'm not the creator but I'm the only active maintainer. I'm not interested in babysitting this portal to keep it from being an easy place to suggest ISIL is a country or other such terrorist POV pushing. There are just too few eyes on it, unlike the major ISIL articles. Legacypac (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nom does not make clear why this WP:PORTAL is more useless than any other. Portals in general do seem pretty redundant, but that would be a village pump discussion, not something that is going to be solved by piecemeal deletion. VQuakr (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination was pretty specific to this portal. I don't understand your vote rational which does not address this portal at all. Legacypac (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that I would likely support a proposal to deprecate portals altogether (though such a deprecation likely would still not involve deletion). Since deletion isn't cleanup, though, no reason has been presented to delete this portal, hence "keep". VQuakr (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant per Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Portals_are_moribund. Content fork, encourages content forking, serves no purpose in the mature Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indon't know about other portals but SmokeyJoe's solution is very elegant. Support redirect. Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elegant? Thanks. Not all Portals, but most. I suggest that Portal:Mathematics is a good threshold marker at 1359 views per day. Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has 2.8% off that, and is a POV problem magnet. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, all protal parent articles, are, unlike portals, maintained up-to-date and contain the same relevant links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Legacypac (talk · contribs) has removed most of the content from the portal. -- John of Reading (talk) (recent changes patroller for the portal namespace) 05:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I deleted outdated and or misleading info and am experimenting with how to redirect it. No one uses it anyway. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John of Reading: The portal subpages were changed to include transclusions of double redirects and parts were completely blanked. When I remedied those problems, Legacypac reverted my fixes, with one edit summary stating partially "buzz off. I'm not done testing here." along with false allegations. Portals are "meant for both readers and editors of Wikipedia" (emphasis added by me); testing, especially on this scale, should not occur on them. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godsy, my personal WP:HOUND can take a long walk off a short pier. He is the king of false allegations and is fresh of a block for harrassment of me. No good can come from him interfearing in my edits. Ya my testing did not work yet. Redirecting a portal subpage is problematic apparently. It looks like we may need to delete the subpages - like the one on "what to do"

I blanked in December 2015 that no one has bothered to add anything back too since. That should tell everyone no one cares about maintaining this portal. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]