Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. Per general consensus (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York

 * – (View MfD)

Old-style manual micro-portal, with very narrow topic scope, and limited set of articles chosen.

Briarcliff Manor, New York is not even a town. It's a village with a 2010 population of only 7,867. That clearly fails the WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

The portal has only 5 selected articles (see Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York), so it provides much poorer navigation and much less coverage of the topic than the featured article-class head article and its associated navbox: Template:Briarcliff Manor, New York.

Either or both of the head article and the navbox are better navigational hubs than this micro-portal.

Note that this portal was previously discussed at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alhambra, California, an assortment of 6 portals which was closed as "no consensus". The closing admin User:Amorymeltzer noted that if there is value in discussing some individually, this shouldn't prevent that. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC because the nominator refuses to be polite) Are you serious? This was just nominated, and almost nobody actually found this warranting deletion. I actively maintain it and it has a good quality, 26+ articles to it, and thus it significantly helps readers access these articles and find out information about the subject. There is no current standard for topic size warranting a portal; please come back when you have one. I put hours of work into creating this and almost nominated it as a Featured Portal; your work here is unhelpful and not contributive to the encyclopedia.  ɱ  (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're taking this too far.


 * "Old-style"? The new style is what User:The Transhumanist has developed, automated portals, which you and the other portal deletionists are even-more-so trying to delete now. This is ridiculous.
 * Town and village distinctions are irrelevant and highly variable. Let's throw that one out.
 * POG is incredibly vague and can be interpreted innumerous ways. Please read the last deletion discussion. Until you have a clear-cut idea of what is or isn't broad, come back. 26+ articles meets most people's interpretations of POG.
 * I can add more selected articles, that isn't whatsoever a factor for deletion.
 * The article head does not nearly cover all of the topics mentioned in the portal, so your statement there is false.
 * Please stop harassing me over this portal. ɱ  (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * First, please drop that false allegation that I am harassing you. Nominating a single page for deletion is not harassment.
 * There is nothing at all impolite about asking you to wait to see the rationale for the proposed deletion before you comment on the proposal.
 * The question of the previous discussion is addressed in my rationale. That alone is good reason for you to have waited.
 * The feature portal process has been discontinued (see Featured portal criteria), so that is irrelevant. It gives me no pleasure to see anyone's time being wasted, but WP:OWNship is no argument against deletion.  See WP:MERCY.
 * In the last 6 weeks, there has been a long pattern of many many dozens of portals on much broader topics being deleted as too narrow. Later this evening I will list a few examples. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are attacking me over this comment thing and at my talk page, which is extremely impolite and repeated and thus I take it as mild harassment. I never argued anything related to wp:own. What? Why are you trying to delete hours of beneficial work? Where are the deletion criteria you are supposed to cite? Are there any actual criteria for deletion that this violates? No, it seems it's just your extremely narrow, deletionist, interpretation of POG. ɱ  (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * POG is also a hotly-contested guideline, with that "broad" phrase you cite having been added, deleted, and changed many times in the past few years. There's no consensus/agreement supporting that phrase with a discussion or RfC, that everyone agrees on that term. In fact, many people think portals should be for small topics as well. This is just you, Legacypac, UnitedStatesian, pythoncoder, and other portal deletionists repeatedly ganging up, trying to scrub all the work Transhumanist, me, and other portal creators/maintainers are doing, in the name of "progress". ɱ  (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I am the portal creator and maintainer. This article meets POG by most users' standards, and current standards of about 20 articles. There are no other valid deletion criteria cited in this nomination. ɱ  (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural note. I have twice asked the creator of this portal to refrain from their long pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct wrt this page, and to stop making personal attacks. See here, complete with diffs. If there is a recurrence, I will take it directly to ANI to end the disruption. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You started the incivility and don't expect a reaction? After trying to delete hours of my work too? Regardless, this page is for discussing this. ɱ  (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't want this grief over this. I've argued all this before and it's clear there's many more deletionists trying to wipe all portals than there are users willing to maintain and fight for them. It's clear your arguments will continue to upset me past the point of civility. Please just close this. ɱ  (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * After trying to delete hours of my work too? - that really pushes an argument similar to WP:HARDWORK and even WP:PLEASEDONT (Please note that WP:REFUND is possible after the portal is deleted.) I'm afraid to note this but all of these deletions are not to delete all portals but it's a direction to get a very solid guideline established for portals. The mass deletion was originally for ones that TTH automated. – The Grid  ( talk )  20:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Before the launching of another nuclear war, let us remember that portals = much ado about nothing. When excluding this MfD period, we have [|Briarcliff_Manor,_New_York wmflabs], i.e. 150 views per day for the article, and 5 views per day for the portal. In other words, instead of having a tool that facilitate the access to the articles, we have a zombie that diverts an infinitesimal part of the traffic from the articles. Pldx1 (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:POG clearly states that broad subject matters are necessary; a small town doesn't deserve a portal for what is best suited for entire genres of study. And if it doesn't seem to reach the quite subjective landmark of broad, it certainly is redundant to the article itself; why have a portal to discover content when the navbox does the job well? It just seems like wasted effort that would work on portals with a farther stretch for readers. –eggofreason(talk &middot; contribs) 00:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That certainly is an opinion. As for redundancy, how many of the below-mentioned 49 articles can you find in the intro to Briarcliff Manor, New York? ɱ  (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - Deletion is decided based on content of the page proposed for deletion and of content arguments, not based on editor conduct. Editor conduct would be a Strong Delete based on a combination of stupid arguments by the originator and of personal attacks by the originator on the nominator.  This portal is being well maintained.  That is the only argument for keeping it, since it doesn't have a broad subject area and doesn't have enough page views to support being kept.  It really just appears to be a personal slide show by the originator.  But hey!  It's a good slide show!  It's one of the best slide shows in portal-land!  It's almost worth keeping as a good slide show.  Whether the originator needs to be blocked is a conduct dispute.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I nominated this portal for deletion in round one so my views on it are clear. However, bringing it back for discussion so soon only picked a needless fight. No one is reading this page anyway and it's not broken. The only real harm it could cause is to act as a precedent to justify the creation of more small city portals, but given the number of other similar size and larger city portals deleted the precedents are against small city portals. A more appropriate pagh forward with this page is to wait for some clearly worded guidelines to be drafted and run thru an RFC, then delete it based on those specific approved guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Well maintained portal. Cca 20 articles is just enough for a navigational portal, which in my POV satisfies WP:POG. Pavlor (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - My view is the same as McClenon. Dont penalize the page it self when trouble originates from editors and not the nature of the page itself. FakeMaknae (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Straw man. The rationale I provided for deletion is nothing whatsoever to do with editors. It's because this 1/ a narrow topic, 2/ redundant to the navbox, which provides better navigation.  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes. I criticized the conduct of the editor and made a Weak Delete recommendation for the page because it is a narrow topic and is redundant to the navbox but is a good slide show.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep it for now - Four classes can be built from useless, harmless, useful, harmful. Due to the so low view counts of any portal, this should better be stated as rather useless, rather harmless, rather useful, rather harmful. As of now, a cleaning is undertaken to address the portals that happen to be rather harmful, i.e. that provide a bad navigation experience to the hypothetical reader. The main cause of such a state is the lack of maintenance, either to control what "amusing coincidences" are occurring from the automated random tools (e.g. Winter) or from a long ranging obsolescence (e.g. BBC). One of the reasons of the "broad topic" requirement is the probability of the existence of a maintainer for the portal... and it's perpetuation across the years. One has to say that more than often the "broad topic" argument is only a dilatory one than can be translated as Someone Will Certainly Land From The Star And Do The Job (and even more certainly since this doesn't occurred recently). Here, we have a maintainer for real, and therefore this portal with its 5 views per day is useless+harmless and surely not useless+harmful. Thus its long term existence is rather depending on a general discussion about portals than depending on a specific MfD discussion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Felicitations - Just above, User:Pavlor said well maintained portal. cca 20 articles is just enough for a navigational portal. When looking at Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York, one can see 3 biographies, 5 articles, and one list. According to my computer, this makes $$3+5+1=9$$ articles. This is not really circa 20. Assuming that User:Pavlor was not only providing verbal words, one can deduce that User:Pavlor will do the job and provide the 10 remaining items before the Last Judgement of the Portals (and even before the closure of this MfD ?). Pldx1 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If my count is right, template Briarcliff Manor, New York lists 19 mainspace articles, hence my estimate. I see no harm in keeping such maintained portal - at least until broader discussion decides what to do with portals in general. Pavlor (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are actually a great many more. Category:Briarcliff Manor, New York has 33 relevant that could be included in the portal, and there are many significant residents who notably impacted the village, who can be in the "Selected biography" section. I'd say Aspinwall, Baldwin, Burns, Catt, Cheever, Hersey, Law Jr., Ravosa, Rockefeller, the Shepards, Speyer, the Webbs, and the Vanderlips. That's sixteen, bringing the total to 49. ɱ  (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - This portal was very well crafted, and has plenty of articles to merit its inclusion. While it is a small town, it has enough articles to justify a portal. Population alone is not enough to determine if a portal should exist. The multitude of featured articles within the portal also justify it being retained. This portal only serves to demonstrate the good that portals can do for Wikipedia. There is no downside to retention. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Dear User:PointsofNoReturn. Saying that this portal ... has plenty of articles to merit its inclusion is the usual fallacy used when discussing about the broadness of a covering. The point is not only about the articles that could be involved in a portal, but about articles that are used in the portal. As of now, there are only TWELVE of them. Don't hesitate to fill the gap by your self ! Another thing you could do to prove all the good that portals can do for Wikipedia would be to provide a proof that Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard really belongs to the  set of 78 people from Briarcliff (and check the rest of the set).  Pldx1 (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's pretty darn easy. She lived in Woodlea. And I'm adding more to the portal for sure! ɱ  (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, the number of articles in the portal when not including the larger municipalities that Briarcliff Manor is a part of is 17, not 12. You forgot to count a row. When including the remaining articles, such as Ossining and Mount Pleasant, it passes the 20 article threshold. I am not going to search through all of Wikipedia for articles to add to the portal, but I am certain I could add 3 more to reach the 20 article threshold, which is largely already reached. Even if it is not fully reached, the articles are high enough quality, including featured content, to illustrate the portal's value to Wikipedia. The portal contributes to the maintenance of the articles, which merits its retention. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's 49 total. Most of those are now in the navbox, and at least 16 25 have their leads incorporated in the portal., with more to come... ɱ  (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. There seem to currently be 14 articles, 1 list, 10 bios & 2 images, plus other hand-curated content. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let me underline the enormous difference existing between 25 [articles] have their leads incorporated in the portal (and are maintained up todate) --as it is the case here-- and "there is a so large number of articles that could have been used ... but aren't because nobody is arsing herself to maintain a portal that no reader is ever reading" (my own summary, not a direct quotation). A portal is supposed to be a navigation tool. When the said portal is not even a slideshow, deletion is in order. As stated somewhere above, my !vote here is 'Keep it for now. Waiting for a better stated policy'. Pldx1 (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Per the comments by, I would fully agree with this rationale. However, I do not appreciate some of the comments by . If being harrassed, then they should take it to WP:AN/I. This is not the venue to make unsubstantiated allegations (ie. without diffs), and a certain amount of decorum is expected. Therefore, my !vote comes in spite of that disruption. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ANI is a useless drama board, and the nominator wasn't wp:harrassment to me, but was aggressively reverting me here and on my talk page and threatening to report me and "end my disruption" based on my complaints of their conduct. I am over that aspect now. ɱ  (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Insufficiently broad topic for a standalone portal. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is broad enough? Where do you draw the line? ɱ  (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO broad enough should be referring to the coverage in en-wiki, not just number of pages (because stubs/starts are generally excluded), but factoring in quality too. There's also an idea in the guidelines that a narrow topic such as a small place is not going to find maintainers, but this seems moot when there is an enthusiastic & competent maintainer. The only issue is what weight we should put on hits from readers, which in this case are low (~5 per day, outside the period when it's presumably been in MfD), see ; I personally don't put very much weight on that, but others clearly do. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - 20+ articles is sufficient scope and it's actively maintained so in good shape. WaggersTALK  09:24, 1 May 2019 (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.