Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indian cuisine (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. MER-C 16:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Indian cuisine

 * ‑Scottywong | comment _ 06:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ‑Scottywong | comment _ 06:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

One of the very last of the automated navbox-clone portals created in 2018/19 by mass portalspammer @The Transhumanist (TTH). There is no non-automated version.

Most of the navbox-clone portalspam was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two), and the rest in smaller groups.

This one was omitted from the mass deletions because it is built on two navboxes, not one. It was nominated for deletion in mid-April 2019 at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indian cuisine, in a discussion which became a bit of a trainwreck because the nominator misunderstood the nature of the portal and took umbrage when corrected. The discussion was eventually closed as "no consensus".

The portal draws its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox Template:Cuisine of India and the sidebar Template:Indian cuisine, both of which are now transcluded in the head article Indian cuisine. That means that the "selected articles" feature of the portal adds precisely nothing to the head article other than the excerpt preview function, which is now redundant (see below).

This portal draws its "selected images" list solely from the head article Indian cuisine. That means that the "selected images" feature of the portal adds precisely nothing to the head article other than the slideshow function, which is now already built into the head article (see below).

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 the navbox Template:Cuisine of India, 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 Indian cuisine, 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". A "portal" which offers zero enhancements is a waste of our readers's time. So let's just delete it. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging the participants in the previous MFD discussion:, plus the closer . -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl. As seen here, this portal has only 17 daily pageviews, as contrasted with 1579 for the article, and so offers no value added.


 * Delete. I stand by my closure for the exact reasons described in this nomination. I'm glad to see this discussion being properly held on the right terms where clear consensus can finally develop. Thank you for your hard work in this field. Cheers, &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @MJL. That was a good close of a discussion which just went all wrong. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If I had known that this essay wasn't as widely read as I imagined at the time, then I would've made a little note. I thought people knew about this though, so I didn't. My apologies. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep If there is an appropriate venue for an MfD coming so soon after a previous MfD closed as no consensus, it is DRV, not a new MfD. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My choice of no consensus was intentionally to allow for renomination. The only objections to that MFD originally were procedural. I see no reason why this nomination was in appropriate. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Salvelinus namaycush for User:UnitedStatesian. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * it would have been very helpful for you to have written your reason in the closing statement rather than to have expected editors to read your mind until now. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What "no consensus" means: In any XfD (WP:AfD, WP:TfD, etc.), "no consensus" defaults to keep. Keeping an article preserves all options and the possibility of future discussions.
 * And your statement that "The only objections to that MFD originally were procedural." is demonstrably false: the MfD got 2 keep !votes that had nothing to do with procedure (from editors who have apparently been WP:BLUDGEONED away from commenting in this second shot at the target).  UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I probably should have said The initial objections to that MFD were procedural. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @UnitedStatesian, far from being bludgeoned away, all participants in the previous MFD were explicitly pinged to invite them here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | comment _ 06:20, 30 July 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) 13:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator. This portal clearly fails WP:POG because it has so few readers and no maintainers. It is also a relic from an episode of mass abuse of the system that has required huge amounts of editor time to clean up, never a well planned out navigation tool for this topic on Wikipedia. As described by BHG, it adds nothing of value, since all it's desired functions are already better performed elsewhere. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this portal is almost flat as a pancake.Catfurball (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per User:BrownHairedGirl. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:24, 7 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.