Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Garage rock

 __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. If there is any remaining content that anyone would like to merge somewhere, contact me or any other admin to temporarily undelete that content so it can be merged. The discussion about whether Portal:Rock music should be merged elsewhere is not relevant here; start a separate MFD on that portal if you wish. ‑Scottywong | [gossip] || 19:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Garage rock


Delete Newly-created portal that does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the the WP:POG guideline. Can be more than adequately covered within Portal:Rock music. UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep In my opinion, the theme of Garage rock is big enough and will be more complete over time. Thanks.Amirhosein Izadi (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Portal:Rock music. I don't see why we shouldn't keep the recently hard work done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Redundant to Portal:Rock music.
 * WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". We have repeatedly seen that music genres are very rarely broad enough topics to sustain a portals. Even portals for much more significant music genres fail to attract enough readers or maintainers to sustain them.  See e.g. MFD:Portal:Punk rock, MFD:Portal:Progressive rock, MFD:Portal:Heavy metal, MFD:Portal:Christian metal,  MFD:Portal:Christian music,  MFD:Portal:Country music, and MFD:Portal:Electronic music.
 * Plus, this portal is the work of a single new editor, whereas WP:POG requires maintainers (plural). This is to ensure balance of approach and consistency of maintenance, and the last 6 months has seen over 700 long-standing portals deleted because of lack of maintenance.  Many (i.e at least a hundred) of them were created by a single enthusiastic editor, often a newcomer, who sooner or later moved on to other interests or stopped editing Wikipedia.
 * I don't want to in any way question the good faith of the creator @Amirhosein Izadi, let alone dampen their obvious enthusiasm for the topic. But the fact remains that creating the portal was a misjudgement, because this one doesn't meet the long-standing pre-conditions for portals. While articles may often be effectively developed alone, a portal is not just a fancier type of article.  It's a complex venture which requires active collaboration and sustained maintenance for as long as the portal exists.  That's why WP:POG guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal." In this case, the creator is aware of WP:WikiProject Rock music/Garage rock taskforce, having posted on its talk page, but didn't even mention the portal there, let alone gather other editors committed to help maintain it.  Even if Amirhosein Izadi had asked for collaborators, it is doubtful that they would have been forthcoming, because WT:WikiProject Rock music/Garage rock taskforce shows that the task force is near moribund: the last time there was an actual discussion there (with one editor replying to another) was in 2017. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

or
 * You're right. Creating this portal was my mistake and I have no objection to deleting it. Amirhosein Izadi (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Amirhosein Izadi. It's not easy to say that about something you put so much work into, and the fact that you feel able to review new evidence and change your mind is a very good omen for your future in Wikipedia ... which I hope will be long and happy.
 * I hope you'll forgive me for seeking a little clarification.
 * Since you created this portal and are its only significant contributor, it is eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G7, but only if you specifically request that . Please note that you are in absolutely no way obliged to do so; this is just an option available to you if you so choose.
 * So please can you clarify which of these options you want:
 * Let this deletion discussion run its course for 7 days, with your lack of objection, noted. An uninvolved closer will then weigh the WP:Consensus.
 * Specifically ask to for G7 speedy deletion. In that case, the discussion will stop, and the portal will be deleted.
 * Absolutely no pressure either way. This is your choice, and nobody will think worse of you for choosing one option over the other.
 * Thanks again, -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Before I choose, I want to say if the contents of this Portal can be transferred to Portal: Rock music? And then I think we have to wait seven days and then delete this Portal. Thanks. Amirhosein Izadi (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom and the thorough investigation of the portal by  Brown HairedGirl . It was a good faith mistake by the creator, Amirhosein Izadi,  who I applaud for having the courage and reasonableness to accept that. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete or Merge – I would have preferred that a completely new portal be left alone long enough to see whether it attracts readers, but it is unlikely that this portal will do better than Portal:Rock music, which has 24 daily pageviews in the June-July 2019 period, after being merged with Portal:Rock and roll. I also note that the portal does not appear to be still under construction, because the nominator waited ten hours before tagging the portal for deletion, and the portal is visibly incomplete.  It displays red errors to the reader, indicating that it is set up to display a larger set of subpages than have been defined. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Garage_rock shows 10 articles, 3 biographies, 8 pictures, 2 albums, and 10 songs, but no 9 or 10.  However, if is configured to display 15 pictures, 29 albums, 30 songs, and 5 biographies.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Portal:Rock music is also a nonviable portal. Merge Portal:Garage rock into Portal:Rock music makes sense only with the understanding that Portal:Rock music will be moved to WikiProject Rock music/Portal
 * Alternatively, one could move Portal:Garage rock to WikiProject Rock music/Garage rock taskforce/Portal independently of moving Portal:Rock music to WikiProject Rock music/Portal, and leave any merging to be done at leisure. Merging is to complicated to be managed from MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we maybe merge and redirect it to Portal:Music? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And then merge Portal:Music into Portal:Society. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with merging of portals, which is presumably the moving of forked subpages from a child portal to a parent portal, is that implies that it depends on the subpages having useful content about the parent topic, and also that it implies that the forked subpage model is a valid model for portals. Stubs sometimes need merging if they have useful content.  Portals seldom need merging.  They more often need deleting.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Few things “need deleting”. Most things needing deletion are covered by WP:CSD. There is a history of good work in the medium level Portals, like Portal:Music, and there is absolutely no need to delete instead of archiving. For Portals to meet their ostensible purpose, even the top level portals need a major restructure.  Major restructures shouldn’t be managed from MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to moving the pages as SJ suggests. I see little likelihood of any benefit from doing so ... but if others want to try to find benefit, I suppose they might as well have a go. However, please do remember that all a portal like this really contains is a forest of subpages which consists of various wrapper pages and a set of redundant content forks.  It would be more useful to just retain a list of article titles. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These portals fail as reader facing pages for navigation, or anything else for readers. They have many conceivable (weaker than good likelihood) editor benefits as WikiProject resource and history. I am noting the complete lack of interest by others in preserving the conceivable benefit. It is as if there is an irrational obsession with the old portal idea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Joe, I agree with your first sentence. Thereafter, not much.
 * What exactly is the conceivable benefit to editors of retaining content forks?  Unless I am missing something, it seems to me that it's you who is irrationally obsessed with the old portal idea. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Conceivable benefits include: records of historical interest; records of what people in the past thought important, records of some "nice looking" portal work that might be useful as a WikiProject showcase for potential WikiProject members. Records of bad ideas are worth archiving because it is useful to know, and be able to point to, what didn't work to avoiding dooming future editors to repeat the same mistakes.
 * My interest in the old portal idea is along the lines of how so much work can be done on something not meeting its objective. My current notes:  a lack of recorded objectives, a lack of review process, a lack of proper process, including scrutiny, with the central guideline (WP:POG).
 * I enjoyed reading your response about how portals were a bit like Webrings, a relic the early era predating functionally reliable web search engines.
 * I'm curious as to what about me you consider "irrationally obsessed"? I consider the "irrationally obsessed" people to be the ones who actively argue in support of portals despite they obvious failure to meet their ostensible purpose as a navigation aid.  By "irrational" I mean that I do not divine the rationality of their motivations.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @SmokeyJoe, I was mischievously throwing back at you a phrase that you used, because on the last few days you seem to have become unduly concerned with preserving the relics of the various implementations of the bad idea of content-forked portals.
 * If archaeologists of wikiportalfandom want to study the variant types of folly involved, there are ~740 extant portals, so we are a very v long way from running out of undeleted portals. Most of those live samples have a much longer history than this new creation, so this would be a poor sample to leave for the archaeologists.  WikiProjects are places of active collaboration, so I am wary of using them as a repository of relics.
 * This in't really the place for the meta discussion on why portals don't meet their objectives. I agree with what SJ says about that, and could add a lot to it ... but for now I'll just note that portals have always been a solution in search of problem.  They were obsolete before they were even implemented, so they attracted few of Wikipedia's more skilful editors but lured the less-skilled.   Hence all those failures which SJ notes, and the portal fans' hurt incomprehension as junk is deleted, which often triggers anger from them. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs)
 * I’m not unduly concerned. I’m raising the possibility of reuse away from readers.  They are not useful for readers, but are they even possibly useful for editors?  No one defending portals is agreeing with that notion, so I guess there is no support for the notion of wikiprojectifying.  That means delete.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge: It appears that keeping this as a freestanding portal would not be a tenable option in light of what several editors have pointed out, but the content here could definitively be retained and merged into another portal such as the Rock music portal. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this junk portal forever.Catfurball (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per BHG's arguments and to reduce the risk that other (mainly newbie) editors will mistakenly think they need to (attempt to) create a portal for their favorite musical genre. I see no need to keep the history (for "wikiarcheologists") or to merge anything into another portal. DexDor(talk) 11:39, 4 September 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.