Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Western Sahara: Difference between revisions

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: no consensus. From the discussion, it seems like some maintenance/expansion work has been done on the portal(s) in question, thus addressing the maintenance-based concerns. On the other hand, the NPOV issues have been only inconclusively discussed - perhaps with a slight lean towards "can be resolved without deletion" as argued by Thryduulf, koavf and Northamerica1000 - and whether the width-of-topic criterium on WP:POG is met by these portals appears to be an open question (that guideline does not go into much detail about when a topic is broad enough) with arguments on both sides. My sense is that this isn't a consensus for deletion but I wouldn't comfortably call it a consensus for keeping either, although it seems to lean into that direction. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Western Sahara

Portal:Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) now redirect/page name at times

This portal is a POV problem. While titled Western Sahara the into is about the SADR. The article Western Sahara takes a much different tactic in dealing with this disputed region. I believe disputed areas are best handled in articles where there are more editors, references, and discussion over scope and name of pages - all things lacking in portal space. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If there's "too much" SADR info, then add some non-SADR info. Simple solution. Portals are allowed to be about people groups and regions, even occupied ones (e.g. Portal:Palestine). The solution here is to make a better portal, not delete it. Do you have anything to add? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This portal is about the area of land called Western Sahara, and yet in the portal the lead of the Western Sahara article is pushed below the lead of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article, a partial state only controlling 20% of Western Sahara. The selected biography is also of the first president of the SADR. Clearly it has a POV issue - and it's problems can further be seen by a read through the portals talk page. The solution is also not to add some non-SADR info as this isn't a portal for SADR, or a portal for Morocco, its a portal for Western Sahara. However, putting the POV issues aside for now and looking more at the portal itself - WP:POG requires portals to be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Western Sahara already has a navbox which seems to contain all Western Sahara content just fine, so it doesn't seem to be a broad subject area in need of a portal to provide additional navigational help. Next, the portal receives about 10 views a day, while the main article receives about 2000 views a day. That's 200 times more showing that this portal does not attract a large number of interested readers. We can also see from the ongoing discussion of the Stamford portal that the consensus appears to be heading for deletion for a portal with its main article only having fifty times the readership. Finally, I think the fact that the POV problems have not been fixed over years and years of this portals existence prove that it also does not attract a large enough number of portal maintainers. A portal is also not a mainspace article - if it's obviously a bad quality portal, there's no need to keep it and fix it, it can be deleted as portals do not contain content and only serve as an optional navigational aid. Meszzy² (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first portal with meaningful discussion on the talkpage and oddly the discussion supports a delete here. Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Old portal, 17 subpages, created 2005-12-31 02:06:24 by User:Koavf. Having a not maintained portal about a controversial topic is a surely no. The DYK, Selected Biographies and Selected Pictures last modif are 12 September 2010‎. The Selected Biographies contains exactly ONE biography and the Selected Pictures contains TWO of them. Saying the solution here is to make a better portal is only a joke: DO IT YOURSELF or keep silent. Pldx1 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pldx1: Very rude of you. I just updated two subpages easily and quickly, so surely you'll be changing your vote. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All editors are encouraged to check the history of this page. I've added a redirect/sometimes page name used here for the convinience of the admin closing this. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And all editors are very much encouraged to take a look at User:Wikima and User:Daryou's edits, too. That would be fun. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I encourage all editors to look at the history of the page. Portals should not be about controversial topics - this has been well established in various MFDs. Legacypac (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: How do you explain Portal:Israel, Portal:Palestine, Portal:Syrian Civil War, Portal:Terrorism, Portal:Cannabis, Portal:Disability, Portal:Discrimination, etc.? Where are you getting this idea that we don't have portals about controversial subjects? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but Israel is a UN country. Palestine should be looked at for possible deletion. SCW is not controversial in the sense everyone agrees there is a war on. I tried to delete Cannabis but was outvoted. I see nothing controversial about the topic of Disability and I've not looked at Discrimination. If you feel a page should be deleted feel free to nominate it here. It's a popular thing to do at MFD. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: You ignored or otherwise didn't understand my question. I'll ask it again and I hope you actually answer instead of deflect with tangents: Where are you getting this idea that we don't have portals about controversial subjects? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bear with me as I'll post a list. There have been a lot of portal mfds recently and only a few were on controversial topics. Off the top of my head Portal:Bill Cosby, Portal:R. Kelly were two. We also deleted an ISIL portal in the last several years. There hae been a few more. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: And those two weren't deleted because they were controversial subjects. So now I'm thinking that you're just making up stuff. Can you point me to any policy or guideline that substantiates your claims or no? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking you should read WP:AGF. How is disability controversial while R Kelly is not? Some examples from March and April of topics best handled in an article: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tamil Eelam (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alternative views Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in India Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Japan Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Zoophilia Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Incest Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Paraphilias Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sexual fetishism. There maybe other reasons to delete cited in the discussions but unsuitability of the topic is a common theme. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: I am familiar with AGF, which is why I am giving you opportunities to explain how you aren't just making up policy ad hoc based on personal preference. E.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tamil Eelam (2nd nomination) mentions how it is controversial and unmaintained. I just updated most of this content, including some more neutral language. Again, I'm asking for a policy or guideline and I don't see one. If you know of one, that would be helpful. Otherwise, individual MfDs which are sometimes irrelevant is just as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as you alleged of me before... You said we don't have controversial portals but we obviously do. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand – The topic meets WP:POG in having a sufficient broad scope and per content availability about the topic. I disagree with the notion of a topic having some controversy around it as a rationale to then delete content about the topic. I reverted this portal to the non-automated version on 13 April 2019 (diff) and was planning on expanding it when I have some free time, but it was nominated for deletion shortly thereafter (a little over ten hours later, diff). So, I won't be working on it for now, because it would be counterproductive to work on content that may be subsequently deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear User:Northamerica1000. Due to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, no one can compulse you to click on this blue link and read again what the WP:NOTCOMPULSORY policy says exactly. But you should nevertheless, this is only two lines long. This will inform you that your !vote cannot be taken into account. Nobody, even you, can compulse anyone to expand anything. If you want to expand this portal by yourself, then please do ! Otherwise, your only choice is keep it, in this pitiful state, and knowing that nobody cares. Pldx1 (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No one is arguing that others are compelled to do work here (other than the person proposing the deletion, which would oblige an admin to do that work). Since he was in the middle of expanding it when the deletion proposal was made and clearly says that he himself is interested in working on it, you are off base both about this compulsory thing and no one caring. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the history does not show where anyone was expanding this page just before MfD. Also I never said we don't have portals on controversial areas, I said we have been deleting portals on controversial or sensitive areas. The topic of this portal remains vsry unclear. Is it about the Free Zone, the Morrocan controlled area, both, the former colony, the government of the free zone or what? Please clarify. Legacypac (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Legacypac: "Portals should not be about controversial topics" but "I never said we don't have portals on controversial areas". How do you reconcile those two...? Especially since we do have portals about controversial subjects and you have no policy or guideline to support this claim? In the edit history, Northamerica1000 changed it to a manual category a few hours before you suggested MfD: this is certainly consistent with him working on it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope the categorization is just part of a project to categorize hundreds of remaining portals. Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral but with the understanding that this portal, if kept, may be renominated within 60 days to see whether improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This would be an interesting experiment around "will people saying expand will really do expand ?". Now, two days after my initial comment, the portal encompasses ONE bibliography (a singer) instead of 1, ONE article instead of 1 and a great total of FIVE pictures, instead of 2, when the eponymous article encompasses 19 of them. One can note that the only thing that File:Posten_der_Frente_Polisario.jpg illustrates is that at least one UN pick-up is white with blue UN letters on it. What a great expansion ! Pldx1 (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm. Could have sworn that the complaint before was that the content wasn't new and refreshed but now the problem is that there are only five pictures in a gallery instead of 22. Where will the goalposts move next, User:Pldx1? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Koavf: you are saying this portal is maintained, I am only checking. Since the article has 19 images, it wouldn't have been difficult to have more than 5 images in the portal. Another problem: File:El Aaiún-Laâyoune Collage.png is a collage, but there are I have seen no copyright assertions for any of the 5 pieces of this collage. More details would be great. Pldx1 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pldx1: I recommend you look again at Commons because you are mistaken. Additionally, that is irrelevant to keeping this portal. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrected there are into I have seen. By the way, commons:Category:Western_Sahara lists a very large series of pictures. Having used only 5 of them in 14 years (and moreover without any editorial comment) says many things. This portal simply doesn't exist for real. Pldx1 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How will this portal be made into something better and more informative than Western Sahara? If it can be made better, why not upgrade the mainspace page instead? How will you resolve the unclear topic issues here? Legacypac (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: The same way that Portal:France is not the same as France? Why would this be a particular case? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This discussion is open since 7 days. Have we seen any real attempt to maintain this portal during this laps of time ? Remember that a portal is supposed to be an efficient navigation tool, and what we have for now helps nobody to navigate anywhere. Pldx1 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pldx1: The last person who made a radical change to it felt discouraged since it was marked MfD hours later. I have since made several demonstrable improvements. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may improve this if it is retained. Again, it would be counterproductive to expand a portal that may be subsequently deleted. That would be a waste of my time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neither of these disputed geographic regions meets the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UnitedStatesian: Neither? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Portal:Western Sahara nor Portal:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @UnitedStatesian: I have no idea what in the world you're talking about. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nomination is concerned with content, not anything existential. Policy says disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. This isn't a severe case. WaggersTALK 15:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This isn't a severe case = How amusing. This MfD was launched 20:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC). And now, this portal continue to only contains ONE snippet of an article and ONE snippet of a biography. But This isn't a severe case. Let us imagine a portal with a negative number of snippets. Be sure that "this wouldn't be a severe case". What could be sufficiently severe to sever a portal ? Pldx1 (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If the portal is retained, perhaps you can consider volunteering some of your time to expand the portal? After all, since you're so concerned about its state, why not perform some work to improve it? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear User:Northamerica1000. When you !vote keep, I respectfully disagree. When you imply "I surely will not spend my precious time here", I simply trust your judgment, and will do the same. I also trust User:Koavf. If there was much to add to this portal draft, he would already have. Pldx1 (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC). Using the word "portal" here was only a lapsus calami. Pldx1 (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is plenty to add about Sahrawi tribes, the political status, etc. Why would we have portals on some states but not on others? This is just classic information architecture. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps because some users are trying to write some articles about some countries, instead of simply saying there is plenty to add. Pldx1 (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not seeing any justification for deletion here - the arguments for it seem to be simultaneously (all paraphrased) "there ins't enough content", and "there is too much (controversial) content" - which is it? There is nothing in any policy or guideline that says disputed areas and/or other (potentially) controversial topics cannot or should not have portals, so that's not a reason to delete either. Then we get to "it's not maintained, there's irrelevant content there" and "there is less content now maintenance was done" - yes, removing irrelevant content will reduce the total amount of content - which do you want? The portal can be improved without deletion, and at least one editor has said they're interested in doing the work, but not if that work is going to be deleted, so again deletion would be counter productive. Even if nobody does do any work on this, there is no deadline so if nothing has changed in six months or so just nominate it again (preferably without self-contradictory rationales). Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Dear User:Thryduulf. Perhaps you should try reading harder. What are you not seeing in the sentence: this so-called portal only contains ONE snippet of an article and ONE snippet of a biography? What are you not seeing in the sentence: This MfD was launched 20:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC). And now, one month later, nothing has changed ? What we have before us is a shameful draft that, from it's creation 2005-12-31 till now, has never(*) involved more than TWO articles in supplement of the main article. (* except during its conversion by TTH into the fork of a navbox, now reverted). This has never ever been a portal in any meaning of the term.

What are you not seeing in   ${\displaystyle {\displaystyle 2\ll 20}}$    ? Pldx1 (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing exactly what multiple other editors have explained to you already multiple times: There is plenty of content available to be put into the portal - this is a problem with a solution requiring editing not deletion. This editing has not happened because those who have expressed an interest in doing so are not interested in putting in the effort only to see their hard work deleted so they are waiting for this nomination to be closed before starting. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulties with explaining the emptiness of this draft by this editing has not happened because those who have expressed an interest [are afraid by this MfD]: the emptiness is 14 years old, the MfD is one month old. I have also difficulties with so they are waiting for this nomination to be closed before starting. Are you implying: "they will start as soon as the MfD is closed" or are you simply saying: "they will find another rationale to wait as soon as the MfD is closed"? Pldx1 (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you I am prepared to assume good faith of those expressing an interest in working on things going forwards. I was not aware this portal existed prior to seeing this MfD, the same might be true of those prepared to work on it now. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no ! I am assuming good faith from everyone. For a first eason: this is our policy, here. And for a second reason: doing otherwise would force me to invent a conspiracy theory that would explain everything. But I am unable to invent anything covering the tea ceremony. Pldx1 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pldx1, the fact that you are ignorant that there are Arab tea ceremonies does not justify deleting this portal. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Koavf. Perhaps, you should look at Portal:Western Sahara/Selected pictures/10. Here, you simply give the impression that you have not checked the captions of the pictures used in this portal. Pldx1 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't resort to cheap jokes and tactics, Pldx1, especially when they're not even accurate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is now 10 pictures instead of 6 before !!! Picture06 is now File:Aislamiento_Isolation.jpg. Its caption in the portal is A Sahrawi protesting Moroccan occupation. At Commons, the description of this picture is Isidro López-Aparicio performing the piece: isolation in the Western Sahara desert (Tifariti), denouncing the isolation suffered by the Saharawi people in the refugee camps of Tindouf since 1975, picture by Isidro López-Aparicio. While es:Isidro_López-Aparicio tells us that: Isidro López-Aparicio ( Santisteban del Puerto , Jaén , 1967) is an artist, university professor and Andalusian curator. His artistic work is developed in the fields of plastic and visual arts, installation and action art. He is a doctor in Fine Arts, he works as a professor at the University of Granada , where he is the director of the research group of the SIDO "Creation, Edition and Conservation of the Image". No comment seems required, except from: ever improving! Pldx1 (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Please see WP:POINT. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – More selected articles have been added to the portal. Hopefully it's retained, so it can be further expanded. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - More selected pictures have been added to the portal, and a couple more DYK entries that were found. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Much credit to Koavf and Northamerica1000 for their contributions. This is clearly a functional, well-made, and presently-maintained portal. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For what it's worth, I've decided to add a few more selected articles to the portal. More work is yet to be done, and any assistance would be much appreciated, but - considering just how slowly this deletion nomination has been going - I think we can reasonably expect that fixing it won't take nearly as long as deleting it. My recommendations are as follows:

  1) a few more selected articles, as those are the most important part of any portal

  2) a few more selected biographies; despite not being required, they're helpful

  3) maybe 5 more pictures

  4) lastly, expand on any miscellaneous components, maybe replace the "quotes" section with something more useful.

  5) this portal is stylistically above-average, but any possible design tweaks to make it easier on the eyes and smoother to navigate would always be a plus

• I'd strongly encourage everyone who's commented thus far to add even one component to the portal, as that alone would be enough to tip the Selected Articles count above the 20 threshold specified at WP:POG. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Close and keep It's been six weeks with no clear consensus to delete and multiple editors involved in maintaining and upgrading the portal. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:07, 23 May 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.