Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Companies

 __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:  no consensus. This is clearly one of the portals that actually gets significant views. The portal has been updated during this MfD, which is helpful. However, if that maintenance doesn't persist after this MfD is closed, then this portal might end up back here with a different result. ‑Scottywong | [yak] || 03:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Companies


Dead, dead, very dead portal.

In 2008 this portal started with 10 selected companies, 10 photos and a "Did you know" section. Since then:


 * Selected companies
 * The first and fifth entries were updated for the first and last time in 2010.


 * The second and third entries were updated for the first and last time in 2009.


 * Entries four, six, seven, eight, nine were never updated.

The list of companies by largest market capitalization hasn't been updated since 2015.
 * misc

The pictures showcase has remained exactly the same.

The list of DYKs was last added to in July 2010. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – As of this post, in the last thirty days, the portal has received an average of 387 page views per day and 11,991 actual page views – see Pageviews Analysis. North America1000 06:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a very high-access portal, with 338 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 19. It also uses categories as part of its maintenance, in a way that I have not analyzed in detail.  Further analysis will follow within a few days.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. While it's true this portal has a much higher viewing rate than most other portals, it still fails other parts of WP:POG, which states portals should be about a "broad subject area, which is likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." (Emphasis mine) This portal has been abandoned progressively over the last 10 years, with final abandonment around 2015. High viewing rates are a big negative when the information being displayed is outdated or inaccurate, such as with this portal. How much damage has been done to Wikipedia's reputation for quality when readers saw this junk portal, we will never know. One off maintenance is not enough to stave off deletion. This portal would need a large team of maintainers to meet WP:POG and it doesn't have it as a decade of hard evidence shows, so it is time to delete it. Remember, crud, even high viewed crud, is still crud. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader.   Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was mistaken in my note that this portal used categories for maintenance rather than subpages. It uses subpages.  It had 330 daily pageviews in Jan-Jun 19, and 338 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 19.  There is an obvious viewer demand for this portal.  Unfortunately, it should be deleted if it is not maintained.  Is someone willing to redesign this portal, perhaps to use categories rather than subpages?  It will be much more useful for a portal advocate to redesign this portal than a little-used regional portal.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Shock and horror. When I read this nomination and verified its assertions, my reaction was a stream of invocations of various deities: why on earth has this portal been left to rot?
 * With a January–June 2019 daily average of 330 pageviews, this was in that period the 12th most visited portal of the 820 currently-existing portals.
 * It is the most-viewed portal after the 11 which are linked from the main page, and it is one of only 7 non-mainpage portals to exceed an average of 200 pageviews per day. As one of the abysmally-low ~20% of portals which has actually been assessed by the portals project, it has rightly been assessed as one of the Category:High-importance Portal pages.
 * So on every measure, this portal should have been a consistent focus of attention by the portals project. But instead it has been shamefully neglected, and it is an utter disgrace that 330 readers every day are being lured away from well-maintained articles to an abandoned page which doesn't even have a single named maintainer.
 * But instead of co-ordinating efforts to remedy the neglect of the high-importance portals which readers actually want, WT:WPPORT remains cluttered with the moans of those who want to preserve more of the narrow-topic portals which almost nobody reads.
 * I hope that in the next few days, we will see WikiProject Portals working with WikiProject Companies to assemble and mobilise an urgent-action taskforce of editors to completely rebuild and expand this portal. But if that process isn't well underway by 25 August (the day before this MFD is due to be closed), then I will !vote to delete this portal per WP:TNT, because it would be better to have no companies portal than to lure so many readers to this swamp of abandonment. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Crystal128-configure.svg Portal update – I have upgraded the portal, which now has 50 selected company article entries, including 15 FA and 17 GA articles, and other content, including major companies from various areas of the world as well as various other companies. The articles are now displayed using transclusions of content directly on the main portal page, the process of which keeps the content up-to-date relative to the content that is presented in articles. Of course, more articles can be added to further expand the portal, and other work can also be performed to further upgrade it. North America1000 15:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Question. That sounds like yet another of @NA1K's solo-run drive-by updates to try to stave off imminent deletion, tho I note that NA1K has not so far added this one to the set of 38 portals of which NA1K claims to be a "maintainer".
 * Portals don't need drive-by updates. They need a team of maintainers to do ongoing maintenance. So my question is: has NA1K identified any maintainers? -  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs)

and which or
 * Comment - My editions on this portal have been reverted without discussion. There are editors who prefer an outdated 2015 section over a dynamic solution. I already used this portal as an example here This portal is the biggest example of how wikiprojects ignore their respective portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * At the time of that reversion back in April 2019, there were a lot of complaints about the automation of portals at MfD, a factor that led to the deletion of thousands of fully-automated portals as "portalspam". At the time it was unclear whether or not people would accept any of the automation. It seems that now, folks are okay with using the transclusions directly on the portal page, compared to using subpages, which may have outdated content, but at the time, it was unclear. The version I reverted to also restored the human-created graphic atop the portal and human-made background coloration, etc., versus omitting these things with the generic, computer-made automated coloration. If the highly-automated version were to have been kept in place, it is quite possible that the portal may have been nominated for deletion months ago, lumped together with the fully-automated portals as being "automated", despite the content being selected by humans. North America1000 21:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense, @NA1K. Precisely zero portals were deleted for using Transclude excerpts as random slideshow on a curated list of articles.
 * The automated portals which were deleted because of automation were all:
 * automated portals where the was no curated version to revert to,
 * were either:
 * clones of a navbox, e.g. Portal:Quezon City, deleted at Miscellany for deletion/83 more navbox-based portals
 * just category dumps by TTH (see e.g. WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Electricity)
 * This revert was done simply because NA1K is slow to catch on, and hadn't yet grasped the differences which were being consistently applied at MFD. Sadly, NA1K also reverted many other portals due to the same lack of understanding.  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. However, you're entitled to you opinion. Apparently, you've devoted your life allocated a great deal of time to getting portals deleted, spending hours performing nominations and making comments at MfD, whereas I am also involved in other matters. The reversion also restored the portal to a graphically superior version, in my opinion. The reversion was not contested at the time, and if it were, I would have gladly discussed the matter. North America1000 21:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Northamerica1000 is gaming the system of the terms of the truce with User:BrownHairedGirl, where BHG agreed not to accuse NA1k of lying. However, NA1k didn't agree to stop saying things that are not true,such as BHG has devoted her life to getting portals deleted.  NA1k:  May I suggest that if you were to spend less time trying to defend portals that are not worth keeping, you might have a little time to contribute positively to a portal that we can see the readers want?  Apparently not ....  Apparently portals, or some of them, have some mystical value.  Well, I am a utilitarian.  (Mysticism is for religion, not for Wikipedia.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck part of my comment above, replaced with "allocated a great deal of time". It was a simple statement made in passing, not a scheme. North America1000 01:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @NA1K, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
 * The fact here is that precisely zero portals were deleted for using Transclude excerpts as random slideshow on a curated list of articles, so your stated reason for reverting GB's edits is nonsense. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe in your good faith, but I hope you understand, I spent hours converting (single page layout) and updating portals, and many updates were rolled back. This is frustrating.Guilherme Burn (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, and I would have discussed the matter at the time had you brought it up. It is of note that others have also expressed concern with using the method of direct transclusions, such as yesterday (UTC time), here at a different MfD discussion, where states, "the easiest way to update each selected article and selected bio is to replace what follows "|text=" with  . But in the current post-Transhumanist period I have been reluctant to do it. If okay, I can do that now and await approval or disapproval." At this time, it seems that the use of transclusions is acceptable to others, in part because it keeps content up-to-date. North America1000 00:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Crystal128-configure.svg Portal update – I have added myself as a portal maintainer. If the portal is retained, I will update it periodically and monitor it for vandalism. North America1000 21:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not credible, not helpful. This is neither credible nor a solution, nor even a step towards a solution.
 * This latest addition brings to 42 the number of portals which to which NA1K has added themself as maintainer. That is ~5% of all portals.
 * Here's the list: Afghanistan, Belarus, Belize, Biochemistry, Coffee, Colorado, Companies, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Evolutionary biology, Food, Free and open-source software, The Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Housing, Hungary, Islands, Italy, Kuwait, Liquor, Lithuania, Moldova, Money, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Oman, Ontario, Panama, Physics, São Tomé and Príncipe, Somalia, Supermarkets, Tanks, Vietnam.
 * I see no evidence that NA1K has any expertise in any of these topics.
 * Per POG, portals need large numbers of maintainers. Being added to the trophy list of an editor who specialises in drive-by updates to stave off deletion does not in any way resolve the ongoing need for multiple maintainers, and does not address the importance that a portal should be maintained by editors who have some expertise in the topic.
 * The lack of expertise is demonstrated by the fact that NA1K's edits to the portal have left the current version with simply a list of companies.
 * There is no explanation of their significance, no grouping of them by era or business sector or location or type any other factor ... and there is no selection of articles on the company law, the history of companies. This is just the most trivial form of drive-by list-making, which does nothing to assist readers except demonstrate that one editor can scoop up a list of article titles. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to make random unannotated lists. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, the portal update included "15 FA and 17 GA articles, and other content, including major companies from various areas of the world as well as various other companies." There are only 15 FA articles available about companies, and for the GA articles, I chose a selection that provides a diverse representation of companies. I then performed research to provide content about some of the largest companies on various continents while also keeping in mind to provide a diverse sample of companies for Wikipedia's readers. This was not a "drive-by" portal expansion. North America1000 21:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Also you state, "and there is no selection of articles on the company law, the history of companies", but the portal's article selection focus has been specifically upon providing a "Selected company" in the box for years, rather than providing a "selected article". As such, it makes perfect sense for the sample to be based upon specific companies, as has been the status quo of the portal for years. If you feel that the scope should be expanded to include the types of articles you mention, you can initiate a discussion on the portal's talk page. North America1000 22:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, the portal has always been just a bare list of companies with no context or grouping, so let's keep it that way. When there's been a decade of failure, why meddle with the failing formula by trying to actually add value for readers, eh?
 * Now, tell us. How many more portals on random topics do you plan to claim to be a "maintainer" of? Why have you just waded in to a minimalist do one-person driveby fix, rather than than to recruit multiple maintainers as required by POG? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - The portals project and portals defenders react with the same short-term burst of activity when this portal, with 330 daily viewers, is tagged for deletion, as for some abandoned seldom-viewed national portals and technical portals. There appears to be only three possible responses to a portal being tagged for deletion. First, do nothing. Second, whine. Third, rush in with a burst of enthusiasm that may actually improve the design of the portal, say that the portal has been updated, and leave it at that. There doesn't seem to be any rule as to what portals get a burst of updating. This does not reflect well on the portal platoon, portalistas, and portal advocates. They don't have a plan, just random action. Maybe they don't have a plan because they don't know what the purpose or purposes of portals are meant to be. They just know that they want portals and can't say why. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a heavily-viewed portal. Unlike most portals, users want it. But the portal platoon isn't interested in providing functionality to users, only in the concept of portals,apparently as toys. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – I have withdrawn from being a maintainer for this portal (diff). The edits I performed were principled and of integrity, as well as wholly credible and helpful. I tire of the derision. Maybe someone else will maintain it. Struck my comment above. Cordially, North America1000 18:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - I prefer to keep this portal until the MfDs of less visited portals are completed.Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this portal it is needed if smaller company portals are deleted.Catfurball (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete without prejudice to a redesigned portal that does not use forked subpages, which are a known source of obsolescence and have also been shown to be subject to vandalism, including sneaky vandalism. There is a demonstrated demand for a good version of this portal, but there is also demonstrated neglect.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Relist this MFD to give the portal advocates opportunities to offer constructive ideas such as a plan for redesign (as opposed to quick fixes that are abandoned), and advertise this MFD to various WikiProjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The advocates of portals have demonstrated a strange set of priorities by applying at least as much energy to defending various low-viewing portals as to this portal with 330 daily pageviews. I have no confidence in their interest in what users want.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That statement is not correct. I for one am an advocate of portals, but as you well know by now, by far the majority of my energy in portal discussions has been focused on the highest viewed portals, as I will demonstrate again by !voting  . . . UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Correction to User:UnitedStatesian - I meant to be referring to the long-time advocates of portals, such as NA1k, who defend both heavily viewed portals and little-viewed portals, because they apparently have some mystical attachment to the concept of portals that they can't explain. At least you have  provided a limited rationale for portals with which I can reasonably disagree.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * . . . Keep This is a highly viewed portal with maintainers, has a dedicated WikiProject, and is a very, very broad topic. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:19, 25 August 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.