Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Creationism (2nd nomination)

 __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:  delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Creationism


Abandoned since about 2012. Redundant to head article Creationism, navbox Template:Creationism topics and sidebar Template:Creationism sidebar.

Created in August 2006‎ by, who laste dite din 2007. Sub-pages created in 2011 by.

The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Creationism is not bad, at first glance :
 * There are are 10 selected articles, and 6 selected biogs: 16 pages in all. However, they all uncanged since 2011 or 2012, so so they are by now 8-year-old-content forks.
 * Portal:Creationism/Creationism news is unchnaged since 2006, and is no longer transcluded in the portal.
 * Portal:Creationism/Did you know has had no new topics added since 2010, and the items listed seem to be unconnected to WP:DYK. Even if they were, per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this 9-year-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.

The most useful part of the portal is Portal:Creationism/Creationism topics, which lists a few dozen topics together. That allows readers to scan the list, rather than being served two at a time from list of 16 articles.

However, a narrow topic like this makes an excellent navbox, so I created the navbox Template:Creationism topics as a fork of Portal:Creationism/Creationism topics.

The result is that two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
 * 1) mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead.  So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links.  Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Creationism, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
 * 2) automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than  a click-for-next image gallery on a portal.   Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Creationism, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Creationism, navbox Template:Creationism topics and sidebar Template:Creationism sidebar.

Maybe someday someone will build and maintain a portal which actually adds value for readers. The new technologies set a high bar for portal which genuinely tries to add value, but maybe some day soem editor will devise a way of making such a portal. But if so, they will do better to start afresh, rather than building on these 8-year-old content forks.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Per nomination. I recommend a WP:HISTMERGE for Template:Creationism topics just to preserve attribution (if this wasn't already done-- I'm on mobile at the moment). Either way, fringe topics like this (Creationism is fringe, right?) shouldn't have portals. However, borderline beliefs like this are fine to delete without prejudice pending a wider conversation. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 13:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concur with the analysis. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Creationism as No Consensus twelve years ago, and nothing has changed except that the portal is still abandoned.  Portal has 12 pageviews, and head article has 841 pageviews.  The topic is within the scope of ArbCom discretionary sanctions as an inherently contentious topic.  As noted about an earlier topic, a portal maintainer, if any, will not be neutral, but will either believe in creationism or will consider creationism to be pseudo-science or woo or even a heresy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nominators rationale. BneiBrakPhone (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Abandoned portal, 34  subpages, created 2006-08-09 01:23:53 by User:Arturo 7. No more alive, no maintainer have been created. Portal:Creationism. Pldx1 (talk) 13:44, 4 June 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.