Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indian cuisine

 __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 (non-admin closure) &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Indian cuisine


Built totally off Template:Cuisine of India and Template:Korean cuisine. Adds nothing to the head article. Just a fork of the template. Not picked up in the bulk deletion noms for some reason but the same issues exactly as a whole series of Country Cuisine pages by TTH. Legacypac (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as nominated, because the basis of the nomination is demonstarbly false. @Legacypac, the reason why these were not picked up in the bulk deletion noms is clear from a very simple examination of the wikicode: neither of them is based on a single navbox.
 * This fact can also be noted without even opening the edit window by observing that neither of them is in the tracking category Category:Automated portals with article list built solely from one template ... and Portal:Indian cuisine is Category:Automated portals with article list built solely from two templates.
 * The "selected articles" list for these two portals is as follows:
 * Portal:Indian cuisine: Template:Indian cuisine and Template:Cuisine of India
 * Portal:Korean cuisine: Template:Korean cuisine and List of Korean dishes
 * I think that it may be possible for each these portals to be made redundant by reorganising the use and/or structure of the navboxes. However, the nomination is reckless and ill-considered.  I have already posted at User talk:Legacypac asking them to stop flooding MFD with such a huge number of MFDs, and this completely false nomination is evidence that Legacypac is working too fast, with too little care.
 * Please withdraw this nomination. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No this is not the place to lambaste me for trying my best to explain which variation of bad idea was used to make these mass produced pages. It took me several hours to find, analyize and write up the'nominations here. We have at least a week, and often much longer due to backlogs, to work through each nomination. There is no panic to reverse the effort I expended to do these MFDs. What difference would it be if they were posted tomorrow or the next day?
 * We are dealing with thousands of error filled error generating pages and the effort to explain the problems on each far outweighs the time that went into creation.
 * For example, why are there two templates for Indian Cuisine and Cuisine of India? That makes no sense. You need to really look carefully at the code to pick that out.
 * Yes the Korean one is also calling on a list page but it is built on one template as I stated. Legacypac (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. @Legacypac, you're missing the point. Your nomination is based on two assertions:
 * That each portal Adds nothing to the head article. This is not true. In both cases, the head article transcludes neither of the pages on which the portal is built.
 * That each of these portals is a fork of the template. Again that is simply untrue.  Each of these portals combines two separate lists.
 * I agree entirely that you need to really look carefully at the code. That is precisely my point: you were working with too much haste and too little care, so you wholly misread the nature of these portals.
 * Many hunrdeds of spam portals are being deleted through proper scrutiny. Over 1400 were deleted by consensus yesterday alone. There is absolutely no need to rush the process and make mistakes.
 * I assume that your error was made in good faith. So rather than complaining that the fatal flaw in your nomination has been identified, please demonstrate that good faith by having the good grace to simply acknowledge that you are a human who made a human error (as we all do from time to time), and that you got this one wrong ... and withdraw it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep per BHG above. No prejudice against later renomination based upon other variables, such as portal guidelines. North America1000 17:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

*Procedural Close - I am ready to accept the word of User:BrownHairedGirl that this nomination is flawed rather than trying to research it while the nomination is still in contention. I agree that these portals fail POG, and will note that the portal platoon only cares about POG when they can reasonably claim that it favors them. However, as long as there are valid concerns about the nomination, we have enough nominations for now and can wait on these. User:Legacypac - Do you really have to behave like the portal platoon in making a very large number of nominations rapidly and then arguing to bypass regular order? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Indian portal transludes the first bit of Indian cuisine which is a vastly better way to explore the topic. Ditto for the Korean page. These portals are just a distraction, a waystation for the reader looking for real content in mainspace. Therefore they fail POG. They are also slight variations and no better in structure then the other regional food portals that have been deleted or are nominated for deletion as follows: Portal:Albanian cuisine • Portal:American cuisine • Portal:Arab cuisine • Portal:Aragonese cuisine • Portal:Argentine cuisine • Portal:Armenian cuisine • Portal:Azerbaijani cuisine • Portal:Barbadian cuisine • Portal:Beijing cuisine • Portal:Brazilian cuisine • Portal:British cuisine • Portal:Bruneian cuisine • Portal:Burmese cuisine • Portal:Canadian cuisine • Portal:Cantonese cuisine • Portal:Chinese cuisine • Portal:Cypriot cuisine • Portal:Egyptian cuisine • Portal:English cuisine • Portal:Fujian cuisine • Portal:Galician cuisine • Portal:Georgian cuisine • Portal:Greek cuisine • Portal:Hong Kong cuisine • Portal:Indian cuisine • Portal:Indonesian cuisine • Portal:Iranian cuisine • Portal:Israeli cuisine • Portal:Italian cuisine • Portal:Japanese cuisine • Portal:Korean cuisine • Portal:Lao cuisine • Portal:Levantine cuisine • Portal:Macanese cuisine • Portal:Macedonian cuisine • Portal:Mexican cuisine • Portal:Moroccan cuisine • Portal:New England cuisine • Portal:Pakistani cuisine • Portal:Shanghai cuisine • Portal:Sichuan cuisine • Portal:South African cuisine • Portal:Taiwanese cuisine • Portal:Tunisian cuisine • Portal:Yunnan cuisine  Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - A country portal is enough to contemplate all the subtopics that may exist regarding it. I think sub portals about countries (Portal:cuisine of "country", military of "country", economy of "country") are unnecessary and does not meet WP:POG.Guilherme Burn (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep - Portal:Korean cuisine is an automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-09-17 10:00:13 by User:TTH. And therefore, this portal is not so different from the deleted Portal:Sichuan cuisine. But there is nevertheless a slight difference. Here, the Selected general articles are obtained from . And thus we have a non totally evanescent trace of an editorial decision: assembling two sources for building the selection of articles. So, we can wait a little for the policy to clarify. But to be clear, if someone comes forward and says: I will maintain a portal about Portal:Sichuan cuisine, with 30+ pictures, 30+articles, etc. my !vote will be You are welcome, Sichuan cuisine is so nice ! Pldx1 (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete However they are built, these portals do not meet the breedth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per . This is a good time to invoke ignore all rules.  The nomination may have been incorrect insofar as the reasons for this not being bundled into the others, but none of the users who are arguing for a procedural closure are really contending that this fails WP:POG, because if that was the rationale for deletion, they would !vote for deletion.  Either way, if this gets closed as "no consensus", renominate based on that and it'll pass.    SITH   (talk)   12:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will reword my admonition above that was originally to Legacypac asking him not to behave like the portal platoon. I will instead urge the advocates of portals not to behave like Legacypac.  Don't insult any friendly administrators, like User:Northamerica1000 or User:Thryduulf.  You can see what the risk is.  For that matter, don't insult reasonable non-administrators who are trying to agree with you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody should be insulting anybody, and nobody should be basing their !vote in a deletion discussion on the person who created and/or nominated the page(s) in question. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Both topics are sufficiently broad to have portals. The nomination seems to be concerned with the content of the portals, which can of course be improved through editing. The deletion policy is clear: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.. WaggersTALK  14:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Waggers.—N<b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 16:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The idea that automated portals will be improved by editing is just silly. It is also silly to argue that a topic will attract large numbers of viewers and portal maintainers simply because it appears to be a "broad subject area".  Many topics that have been said to be "broad subject areas" attract very few portal viewers, and some even attract few readers of the parent article.  The viewing of the portals and parent articles in the period of 1 January 2019 - 28 February 2019 was:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Title !! Portal Page Views !! Article Page Views !! Ratio !! Notes !! Percent
 * Korean cuisine || 5 || 771 || 154.2 || || 0.65%
 * Indian cuisine || 17 || 1,579 || 92.9 || || 1.08%
 * }
 * Indian cuisine || 17 || 1,579 || 92.9 || || 1.08%
 * }


 * In each case, the portal had approximately 1% of the viewers of the parent article, and neither portal had as many as 20 pageviews a day. If a portal is not attracting viewers, there is likewise no reason to think that it will attract portal maintainers.  An unmaintained, purely automated portal provides no functionality that is not already present in the combination of two pages, either a template and a list article, or two duplicative templates.  These portals should be deleted, without prejudice to the future creation of curated portals based on future portal guidelines, but metrics have shown that portals only rarely generate the demand that will justify the labor-intensive effort of maintaining miniature Main Pages.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Dear User:Waggers. Saying both topics are sufficiently broad to have portals seems slightly misleading. This is tweaking " Both topics are sufficiently broad to deserve portals", with what appears as a pretense to assert that Portal:Korean cuisine is a portal instead of should have been a portal. What the reader is faced with is a fake portal, that navigates into nothing. A single example: Traditional Korean meals are named for the number of side dishes that accompany steam-cooked short-grain rice. What a great sentence! Therefore galbi is the number of side dishes that accompany a 갈비구이, while the reason why number 4 is associated with 탕평채 remains left to the reader as an exercise. there is a reason for this shameful "named", related to a lack of maintenance . Why would the keep !voters spent any part of their precious time to maintain an abandoned thing that only attracts five views per day ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is easy to argue a priori that these portals are "broad subject areas" that will attract readers and portal maintainers, but whether areas will attract readers and maintainers is not a priori knowledge. We have seen a posteriori that these portals do not attract readers and portal maintainers.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.