Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jordan (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:  no consensus. OK, this is some confusing discussion full of sidetracks. It seems like the key questions are a) can we have a portal on this topic and b) can the portal be brought up to shape, e.g by reverting it to a manual version. Point a) appears to hinge on WP:POG and WP:REDUNDANTFORK and it looks like there is reasoned disagreement about whether POG is met or REDUNDANTFORK violated, with no killer argument on either side. Regarding point b) as noted by Waggers and others people are working on this portal - the portal under discussion in this MFD - so the "nobody is going to fix this" argument is not really convincing. Maybe at the end it will turn out that it can't be maintained after all, but I am not seeing a consensus for that. So no consensus on either point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Jordan

 * – (View MfD)

Abandoned old-style manual portal converted to a wholly automated pseudo-portal based on the page Outline of Jordan. As such it is now just a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the Outline.

(Until a few days ago, the article list was sourced from the navbox Template:Jordan topics, but for some reason that was causing display glitches).

Either way, it's the same flaw as portal based on a single navbox. The nature of the single page does not alter the redundancy. (For a full explanation of why a type of based on a single navbox is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

This page was previously an old-style multi-page portal, converted to the automated form by @The Transhumanist in January 2019. The last manual version before TTH's various changes is not broken, but it is woefully inadequate. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Jordan shows the subpages, including Portal:Jordan/Selected Biography Archive (only two links) and Portal:Jordan/Selected biography (only one link); while Portal:Jordan/Selected article contains only one link, the acient city of Petra.

So basically, the portal was very skimpy, and has been abandoned after its creation in 2006.I don't think there anything worth keeping. No Portal:Jordan is better than this Portal:Jordan.

So, I propose that this portal be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - A judicious application of WP:TNT is required here.-- Auric   talk  02:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Note that some work has occurred to expand and improve the portal. More work is needed, but it's a start. North America1000 04:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Note. I am aware that this was recently discussed at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jordan, but that discussion did not properly examine the poor state of the manual version which some editors wanted to restore. Pinging all participants at the previous MFD: . --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't have time to review this, and at the rate things are accumulating atm, never will. But, please humour me and
 * (1) explain in detail what the rationale for automatically deleting portals on portal-worthy topics purely because they are based on an outline;
 * (2) point out all the closed-as-delete MfDs that support this stance are.
 * This is a genuine good-faith question; I've commented on so many of late I can't see straight, let alone remember which was which. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Espresso Addict
 * User:Espresso Addict To answer your good-faith question, some of us, including User:BrownHairedGirl, have been saying that automated portals that are based solely on a single navbox or a single list, and an outline is a single list, are inherently crud and should be deleted without regard to whether the topic is portal-worthy (which is why the deletions are without prejudice to a curated portal). What has started the cleanup of portals was the plague of cruddy portals, and they are being identified and deleted with more care than they were created with.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgive for me being blunt, but I am tired after putting a lot of time into this, and after NAIK's antics below, I am annoyed:
 * that should be very simple: if all the links are on one page, another page which reproduces that set is the same thing, repackaged
 * I'll just give you one for now: WP:Miscellany for deletion/15 automated portals built on a single list. Call the page a list or an outline or colorless-green-sleepy-monster-from-Atlantis-with-bad-taste-in-music, it's still a page of links.
 * There are more such MFDs ... but sorry, if want a comprehensive set, you can do yer own homework. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Lists are not the same as outlines, at least in the sense that proposing to delete a proper list in mainspace to make way for a portal is absurd. However, I see no reason to automatically prefer an outline to a portal. In principle, it would make perfect sense to delete outline of Jordan, which gets broadly the same amount of traffic (ie not a lot) as Portal:Jordan,|Portal:Jordan and move the content into the portal. Or just leave both where they are, as different ways of presenting an outline of the topic, depending on whether one prefers links or summaries+images (which might depend whether one is logged in or out). So I'm leaning keep, for now, at least till this issue is clarified. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that both the outline and the portal are crud, but we are only talking about the portal right now. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm afraid "I think it's crud" is not a valid reason for deletion; it's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT repackaged. Bermicourt (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Espresso Addict, the principle of not keeping content fork portals is now broad community consensus, per the two mass nominations. The closer should discard your argument which is based on rejecting that consensus.
 * If you or anyone else wants to open an RFC on a broader process of converting Outline pages to semi-automated portal, go right ahead. As you know, that conversion could be done in about one minuted per page, if  — big if — there is a consensus to do it.  So there is no need to keep the WP:REDUNDANTFORKjust in case there might at some point in the future be an RFC consensus for an idea which you have only just floated here. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I genuinely disagree that there's consensus for automatically deleting portals other than those based on one or more templates, and would ask the closing administrator to use their own judgement. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and revert to This pre-automated version. Consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jordan was discerned eight days ago for the portal to be retained. People should actually be allowed some time to improve it; these things take time. The core of a portal is in place at the pre-automated version, it just needs expansion. See also WP:IMPERFECT, part of Wikipedia's Editing policy. North America1000 02:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One problem we have at the moment is that we are drowning in deletion discussions. I've been trying to find a space to work on my own portals (or indeed anything else) but there's always another 20 or so portals at MfD to check. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the deletion nominations should slow down. I've worked to expand some portals very recently, even today, but it does take time. It takes a lot more time to properly expand a portal compared to the time it takes to type out a deletion nomination and for a relatively small group of "portal deletionists" to subsequently state "delete per nom" along with some other minor comments. Fact is, though, unfortunately, this has been the status quo at MfD lately. North America1000 03:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) @Northamerica1000 & @Espresso Addict, I think it's likely to remain that way for some time. The lack of triaging of portals over the years has left a backlog of rotting portals, some of which have been rotten for over a decade.
 * After the big effort to clear TTH's spam creations, quite a few editors have now developed some expertise in scrutinising portals. I want to continue my trawl of the heap while that knowledge is still fresh and before portals gets restructured again.  I know my way around the current setups, and I'd like to finish the job of clearing out the junk, so that broad decisions can be take about the non-junk remainder.
 * I can't speak for others involved in the cleanup, but they seem to be keeping going too.
 * However, I am conscious of the load on those who want to scrutinise these nominations, so I bundle where possible, and try to write a comprehensive description of the issues, complete with links, to facilitate that scrutiny. This one took me about 40 minutes of research and writing, but some of the bundles of about ten have taken many hours of work before publication. So there is a limit on how many I can process; I don't think it helps anyone to chuck out one-line nominations of pages with a complex history.
 * However, it's also wildly unrealistic for NAIK to assume that they can single-handedly expand and maintain the hundreds of rotted portals which have been discovered in recent weeks. Manual portals need a lot of work to set up, even more to expand, and have often lacked maintenance for 5 or 10 or even 13 years.
 * If the issue that NA1K and one or two others can't keep up with the rate of scrutiny, that simply reaffirms the fundamental problem that led to them all rotting in the first place: that there have been way more portals than the community could maintain. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @@Northamerica1000 you got my goat there in your last post. I have spent many many hours researching MFD nominations. Your description of that hard work as  type out a deletion nomination is utterly outrageous.  This nomination alone is the first of abatch of 9 pages I am working through after an initial assessment which has already taken over 4 hours
 * I also spent literally hundreds of hours on checking and sorting the driveby spam which was created in seconds, because a bunch of other radical include-any-old-crap-ists blocked a speedy deletion criterion. So i get seriously pissed off at cheap throwaway ABF misrepresentations of the scrutiny that I apply before making an MFD nom. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * PS. Portal:Jordan has been junk for 13 years. Any suggestion that MFD now is somehow  a rushed job is risible. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have any particular issues with (may I refer to you as BHG, it's easier to type? EA/Espresso is fine for me) BrownHairedGirl's careful nominations. But there are several people bringing portals here, and not all are as experienced or as careful.
 * Personally I'd like to develop a two-stage portals for deletion process, similar to the featured delisting, but I haven't stopped typing for ~5 hours, and I have yet to start doing what I wanted to do this evening. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, EA, call me BHG. That's fine. But thanks for asking.
 * Look, I know that some other MFD noms are sloppy and rushed. I have been critical of both the speed and quality of those nominations, and have bene subjected to a sustained campaign of personal abuse for doing so.
 * So I am well annoyed that you and NA1K used this page to vent about issues you have with others. That's not good conduct.
 * Sure, a two-stage process sounds good. But it's a year since dozens of experienced editors posted at WP:ENDPORTALS about how most portals were rotten, unmaintained crap.  It's 7 months since I first posted at WP:WPPORT about the dire quality of the new creations.  So I'm gonna shout now: EVERY SINGLE DAMN STAGE OF THE CLEANUP HAS BEEN DRIVEN BY PEOPLE OUTSIDE WPPORT.  I have posted many times abut the need for a triage process, but nobody at WPORT has even writyen a draft outline of such a process, let alone got consensus for it, never mind putting it into action.
 * Portals fans left a triaging vacuum for a decade, and now that vacuum has been filled by using MFD as the forum. Your choice. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Other's have been helping to improve the non-automated portals as well. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals. At any rate, my comment was regarding the overall state of affairs, not this particular nomination; your nominations come across as researched, but others do not. Well, I'm going to go work on some more non-automated portals now; hopefully my work and the work of others to improve the encyclopedia will be fruitful. North America1000 03:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This was just kept last week and should not be deleted on a technicality. As a result, I'm really, really frustrated with BrownHairedGirl's attempt to own the policy around whether portals should be kept, and prefer they stopped cleaning up the junk, or at least stopped cleaning up the junk for a short time period so we can figure out what to do next. The problem with scrutinising portals that are not problematic is it largely comes down to an individual interpretation of WP:POG, and a number of proposals are up at I believe the Village Pump. I'm now sitting here having absolutely no idea whether a portal will be kept or not, after the deletion of portals which have dozens of featured articles, or deletions of portals of sports teams I've worked to fix up, largely because the users who dislike portals are currently controlling the deletion procedure. But in any case, this is clearly a tendentious nomination. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer, please ... WP:REDUNDANTFORK is not a technicality.  It's a long-standing, key content guideline.
 * And you would well know if you had read this nomination, it doesn't even mention WP:POG. That's a straw man. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Calling a portal a WP:REDUNDANTFORK is a new one to me. Considering the amount of time you took to bring this to MfD, did you ever consider updating the portal instead of renominating it on a technicality, especially since we're swamped with these deletions at the moment? SportingFlyer  T · C  03:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Calling a portal a redundant fork is not a new one. BHG has been making that point in every analysis of automated portals.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer, I am disappointed to see that you repeat the bogus claim that this nomination is based on technicality.
 * If WP:REDUNDANTFORK is a new one to you, then you simply have not been following recent discussions. I have posted on on this MFD's talk page a list of 78 recent Portal MFDs in which WP:REDUNDANTFORK has been cited.
 * Note also that WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox, where @SportingFlyer !voted to delete (along with an overwhelming majority of a very high turnout) was based explicitly on the principle in the nomination statement that This makes each of these portals merely a fork of the navbox. Exactly the same wording was used a week later at the Second batch of mass-created portals based on a single navbox.  Just in those two discussions alone, that's 2,555 portals deleted as forks. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:REDUNDANTFORK was never explicitly mentioned, and I voted delete since the issue in my mind was the mass creation of portals without any portal maintainers, not because they're redundant forks. The "redundant fork" argument is an argument against all portals, not just portals based on one navbox specifically, which I've mentioned before - you and others have been crusading against all portals, and the rules on which individual portals should be kept or deleted boil down to WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have no idea what you think this deletion discussion is if not a technicality - you know what you're doing around here and I'm extremely disappointed that you would open another contentious delete discussion a week after the community !voted to keep this particular portal. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer, I'm extremely disappointed that you
 * try to invent or imagine some massive distinction between the phrase This makes each of these portals merely a fork and a shorthand link to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. That's way beyond wikilawyering; it is wikisophistry.
 * Do not accept the consensus at that the two mass CFDs or the dozens of others which also agreed to delete WP:REDUNDANTFORKs
 * Make an unevidenced smear against me in your false assertion that I have been crusading against all portals. I supported WP:ENDPORTALS, but accept its result, and have voted keep in many MFDs. My efforts have been to remove the junk, not to achieve by stealth a goal which as not reached broad consensus.
 * I pinged all the participants in the previous discussion, included yourself, to avoid any risk of forum-shopping. I have below pinged the closer of the previous discussion, inviting them to close this discussion if they feel that is appropriate.  If so, I'll take the previous close to DRV to seek a relisting on the basis of new info, and then we can resume AFD round 3.
 * Y'know, SportingFlyer, I do really believe that you mean well. But you have repeated here a pattern of launching off with little regard for fact, and of making counterfactual allegations that I am acting in bad faith. Your attempt to dismiss policy-based debate as WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT is especially low. i suggest that you take some time to reflect on your conduct. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are acting in bad faith. I just very much disagree with you on a couple issues, and I'm very frustrated with the manner in which portal deletion has been conducted. I voted delete in the previous discussion not on WP:REDUNDANTFORK grounds but because the bulk creation of portals was generally disruptive and bulk deletion was incredibly efficient, and I believe a number of the other !voters did too. I'm appreciative of the work you did nominating all of those in bulk, but I don't think that particular MfD created any specific policy. The only other !voter who even mentioned forks in the discussion was . I do not think you have a consensus to delete this particular topic on WP:REDUNDANTFORK grounds, and I don't believe any portal should be deleted on WP:REDUNDANTFORK grounds, because I believe there's a distinction between portals and articles. I also keep bringing WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT into play because, as I've mentioned above, we do not currently have good rules on what individual portals to keep and delete. It's not that there are no rules at all, but they're not very clear, and they're being applied arbitrarily. Also, I do note that you were in favor of keeping at least some portals at WP:ENDPORTALS, but the MfD after MfD of portals is exceptionally hard to keep up with, and I admit many of them being nominated do need to be removed. But I'm sure you can understand how someone like myself who is generally supportive of the portal project can find this entire process very frustrating. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) I get the frustration, @SportingFlyer, but I assure you that it's mutual. The cleanup has been very labour-intensive, and while some portals project members have been supportive (most of them intermittently, on a case-by-vase basis), very few have been proactive, and many have been outright hostile. All the heavy-lifting has been done by outsiders, including my mods to Module:Excerpt slideshow to make a suite of tracking categories (see Category:Automated portal pages tracking) and my many thousands of AWB runs to cross-check and analyse various issues. My folder of lists of portals contains several hundred pages, plus hundreds more deleted.  Look at the list of my WP-space page creations, and test a sample to note the depth of analysis involved.  The portals project had no grading system to help.
 * If a project has a long-term failure to triage the pages in its scope according to community norms, then eventually the work gets done by outsiders who may bring different sensitivities to bear. I first saw that happen back in 2006/07 with the then Baronetcies project, which I had some dealings with 'cos I worked on British MPs, and there was a lot of overlap.  The Baronets fan club was treating every baronet as inherently notable without getting community support for that.  They squealed when a few outsiders AFDed and PRODed, but rejected my pleas to do some triaging and start a controlled cull.  So inevitably, a momentum built outside, and the cull was done with a lot less sensitivity than the project members would have liked.  With a few miscreants involved on both sides, before long the Baronets project collapsed ... and outsiders did a huge cull.
 * That's all very similar to what's happening here. More than 2 months after TTH's bubble was burst, the portals project has done almost nothing proactive.  No identification of obvious junk, little or no list-making or tracking; just a few unlogged driveby reversions of automated portals to manual state, often with zero quality assessment.  MFD:Portal:Angola was one of those.
 * If you and the other portal supporters want sympathy and assistance, you all need to be doing a whole lot better than restoring junk like Angola and Myanmar (see MFD:Portal:Mynamar) without even logging it as a problem, and now wikilawyering a defence of this abandoned junk which was converted to driveby template-fork then driveby outline-fork.
 * And above all, if you and @Espresso Addict want to now make a last stand on the claim that automated portals are an exception to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, I will escalate the dispute resolution fast and high, because I think that there is a clear community consensus that portals are not an exception to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. There's a long list of discussions on this MFD's talk page which effectively endorse the WP:REDUNDANTFORK principle, and I did a quick analysis of the first mass nom.  Out of the first 20 !votes, 7 explicitly note the redundancy.  So if I have to take this to an RFC about whether automated portals should be WP:REDUNDANTFORK-except, I am pretty sure that the community  reaction will be a severely displeased shout that the portal fans have a severe case of  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  After a year of the project at best failing to stem the flood of portalspam, and at worst cheering it on, followed by several months of high-drama cleanup, I expect that will be the point at which any remaining collective credibility of the portals project vanishes.  It's a nuclear option ... but if you want to press that button, we can do it that way.--  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Just for everyone's reference here is the current text which is the target of the shortcut WP:REDUNDANTFORK (there look to have been no substantive edits since February):
 * Content forking can be unintentional or intentional. Although Wikipedia contributors are reminded to check to make sure there is not an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance they will forget, or that they will search in good faith but fail to find an existing article, or simply flesh out a derivative article rather than the main article on a topic. If you suspect a content fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.
 * Espresso Addict (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redundant fork was written with articles in mind, not portals. Portals use content from articles to provide a unique means of navigation. North America1000 21:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Northamerica1000, not so. Portals use content from multiple articles and pages, to provide a unique means of navigation.  Merely putting a wrapper around an existing set is not unique.  How complicated is that?
 * Many dozens of editors at recent MFDs have endorsed that point. What on earth is going on with you three that you think his is somehow still up for dispute? --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Clicking the link and reading the policy? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if Redundant fork is going to be applied outside of articles, even though it was written to pertain to articles, then it could be used to delete all nav box templates. After all, categories have the same content as templates, so the templates would then be considered redundant forks. Then, after all the nav boxes are deleted, we can start adding category trees to the bottom of articles in their place. What's next? North America1000 23:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) @Espresso Addict, in this case, that's just hardcore textualism. The community consensus is already very clear that the same principle applies to portals.  If you really want to relitigate that issue in order to defend this particular example of the portalspammer's failed autonmation project, then as I wrote above to @SportingFlyer, we can do that. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Northamerica1000, I am disappointed but not surprised by that comment. You have been here long enough to know that the categories/templates issues has long been covered by WP:CLS, and that portals (let alone automated pseudo-portals) are are not part  of the guideline.  But it looks like y'all really do want to make your last stand on defending this aspect of the portalspammer's junk. [[wikt:Pierre_Bosquet|

C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre: c'est de la folie]]. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, my !vote above is to revert to This non-automated state, and then improve the portal from there. No defending of any "portalspammer's junk" here. North America1000 23:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't know how the text I quoted (which is all the article says that's linked with that shortcut) applies to portals. If you read it editing in "portal" in whenever it says "article", then it says essentially don't create Portal:Butterflies and moths when Portal:Lepidoptera exists, and if one does so by accident, merge into the older of the two, which won't get any argument from me. The rest of the guideline's text deals with articles and mostly isn't appropriate to meta-content such as portals. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Northamerica1000, if you want to revert to manual, then why on earth defend the principle of retaining an automated junk fork? That seems pointless.  I would paraphrase it as "the current version is so bad that it's better to revert to that which was abandoned for years ... but I want still want the right to retain the really mangled stuff". Odd.
 * Espresso Addict, as above, the principle of not keeping a portal as a wrapper around one other page is very well established by now, at numerous MFDs, including one of the biggest-scope and best-attended MFDS ever.   But you've made it very clear that despite that, you want to wikilawyer it to enable the retention a subset of the portalspam and/or a subset of the driveby conversions of manual pages to automated junk.
 * I hear you loud and clear. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending automated portals. I view Redundant fork as being misused relative to automated portals. Redundant fork was written in regards to articles, not portals. Applying it to portals is a synthesis of Redundant fork's actual intent. That's it. North America1000 01:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I know I told privately that I would avoid drama at all costs but this claim that WP:REDUNDANTFORK does not apply to portals just came so out of left-field for me. Consensus has been since MFD:Mass-created portals based on a single navbox that WP:REDUNDANTFORK does apply to portals. I am quite shocked that anyone walked away from that discussion thinking "portals based on a navbox are still a real good idea" or anything even similar to that statement. If that is not what is being said here, then so be it. If the arguement really is that WP:REDUNDANTFORK doesn't explicitly refer to portals, then that is just semantics. The same principle behind it clearly applies unless someone here is saying that it doesn't. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're going to need an RfC then, since my understanding of that MfD was that it had identified the vast majority of problematic bulk-created portals, not creating binding policy applying forking to portals, which are a separate navigation tool. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of people handwaved the whole redundant fork notion in order to get rid of the navbox-based pseudo-portal junk. If you examine the actual guideline, it's absurd to apply it to any meta-content, whether that's the main page, other portals, categories, or outlines, or infoboxes (which duplicate Wikidata), or whatever. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Espresso Addict, as I noted above, Out of the first 20 !votes, 7 explicitly note the redundancy. But you reject here the principle that the article list of a portal should not be a precise replica of the article list of an another page. So I will open an RFC on that.   At the RFC, you can tell all those editors who they didn't mean what they wrote. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop putting words in my voice. I don't necessarily "reject ... the principle that the article list of a portal should not be a precise replica of the article list of an another page". (And in any case, even the navbox portals are not exactly that, as they reject stubs.)
 * I do reject the notion that this is anything whatsoever to do with the policy that you linked, which says nothing of the sort, and (mostly) doesn't apply to meta-content. I just was perfectly prepared to IAR it, in order to get rid of all the junk. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pffffft.gif
 * Wow, this subthread keeps getting slimmer and slimmer. Maybe let's give it a rest and just discuss this portal at this time. Just saying. North America1000 13:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @: This is why Outdent exists, right? Either way, I will talk to about helping me write an essay interpreting WP:REDUNDANTFORK or something like that. We can discuss it then if you all like. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @: This is why Outdent exists, right? Either way, I will talk to about helping me write an essay interpreting WP:REDUNDANTFORK or something like that. We can discuss it then if you all like. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Question - User:BrownHairedGirl, I think that in this case User:SportingFlyer has a valid point, and I am not sure how much validity to give it. Are you re-opening this discussion based on a technicality?  If you have new information, should it go to Deletion Review rather than just re-litigating?  I realize that I am asking the critics of portals to play consistently by the same set of rules when the advocates of portals are shifting the rules, first saying "Speed Up!  Let's Go to 10,000!" and then saying, "Slow down!  You are rushing undoing our spam!"  But maybe everybody should play by consistent rules.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon, I didn't see much pint in going through DRV when the prev discussion was so manifestly deficient. However, I am pinging the closer of the previous discussion, User:Amorymeltzer to invite them to to close this discussion if they think that DRV would be a better path. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point I don't think it matters what I think proper; given all the participation before and after this, I think my involvement is best summarized by Austin Powers (or was it Frank Drebin?): that train has sailed. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 14:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Assuming BHG's history link is correct the manual portal was a static one. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Both automated and manual versions are shameful shits, showing utmost disrespect to Jordan... and to the so few readers that get lost at Portal:Jordan. See [|Portal:Jordan wmflabs] for some figures. As usual, without prejudice to anyone who would create and maintain a decent portal about this country. Pldx1 (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Did You Know that previous manual version of this portal was in such a pitiful state that TTH was totally right when nuking this not-a-portal version that never used more than THREE biographies, ONE other article and THREE pictures? Pldx1 (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Did You Know why the automated version of this portal is a shameful shit ? Because it pretends to use the following Did You Know:
 * ... that Jordan' Murphy was the first basketball player to earn Big Ten Conference Player of the Week three weeks in a row since Evan Turner did so eight seasons earlier?
 * ... that Jeremy Lin and Jordan' Clarkson were the first Asian Americans in NBA history to start together at guard?
 * ... that LaVar Ball claimed that he would have beaten Michael Jordan' in one-on-one basketball?
 * ... that Savannah Jordan' was the first soccer player in the history of the Southeastern Conference to be named SEC Offensive Player of the Year as a freshman?
 * ... that curve-shortening causes every smooth simple closed curve to become convex and then near-circular before it shrinks to a point?
 * ... that show creator Tony Jordan' wanted HolbyBlue to emulate the American police dramas Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue?
 * ... that the Supreme Court of Canada held that it was unreasonable for there to be a 44-month delay between the filing of charges and the trial?
 * ... that the fatal shooting of her son inspired Lucy McBath to advocate for gun control and ultimately run for the United States Congress?
 * ... that the footballer Jordan' Green worked as a supermarket shelf-stacker before earning his first professional contract?
 * ... that the social thriller film genre has been popularized in the United States by Get Out director Jordan' Peele and in India by Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan?
 * as a method to navigate into the articles about the country Jordan, whose capital is Amman. A Jordan curve, indeed! Pldx1 (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Nb. Per the DYK errors listed above, I have removed DYK section from the portal for now (diff). Errors in such a magnitude is unacceptable and a disservice to WP:READERS. The errors listed above are no longer on the page. North America1000 00:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's over 3 months since TTH's 22 January 2019 "restart" of the portal enabled this garbage. It's 17 days since this portal was first MFDed.  Yet only now, after 40K of discussion here, when @Pldx1 helpfully copy-pastes the DYK crap from the portal page to the MFD page, does one of the portal fans even do a quick edit to remove the junk.
 * Despite this, the portal fans are still telling us that this page should not be deleted 'cos they have the capacity to develop and maintain by a very time-consuming process this and many hundreds of similar portals which they want to revert to manual after the same portals were automated due to decades of rot. Not plausible. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not a "portal fan". I'm a portal editor. Sorry, but your continuous negative typecasting of and finger pointing toward portal editors in various discussions is tired. Stereotyping in a negative manner using the term "portal fans" doesn't affect me, because it's subjective, and I base much of what I do upon logic, rather than emotion and partisanship. One could ask why the user that pointed out all of the problems above didn't simply correct them at the source, and instead chose to keep the errors in place as a justification for deletion. It took a fraction of the time (about 20 seconds, including the edit summary) to correct at the source compared to the time it likely took to copy and paste the above content. When such errors are found, perhaps post them at the talk page of WikiProject portals, where users interested in improving portals can then have a chance to address the concerns. Regardless, at least consider keeping in mind that philosophy regarding portals relative to XfD discussions is not an exercise in groupthink mentality, and that people from many backgrounds and with diverse points of view contribute to Wikipedia. North America1000 01:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * NA1K, I base what I do on logic, not emotion. It's the defenders of portals who repeatedly defend the illogical.
 * So here's one bit of logic: Plx1 supports deletion of the whole page. Why on earth do you expect them to remove one of the broken parts on what they hope will be the whole portal's way to the recycling bin?
 * And I will repeat the piece of logic I posted above. Hundreds of manual portals were automated due to decades of rot. Where exactly do you propose to find the capacity to develop and maintain by a very time-consuming process this and many hundreds of similar portals which you want to revert to manual?
 * The defence of large numbers of poor-quality portals without resolving even that basic long-standing problem looks to me like the stance of a fan, not of an editor making a logical assessment of what is actually possible with the available resources. That's one of the reasons I use the shortened phrase "portal fan". -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree "portal fan" is a mischaracterisation., your cleanup efforts are appreciated, but I want to remind you again you do not own the process. There's been a lot of hostility from portal deletionists, and those sort of comments don't contribute to civility. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that caused offence, but as I just noted above, what I'm seeing here on similar pages looks very like a fan club. Lots of enthusiasm, but less focus on practical constraints.
 * For example, I see that in the last few hours, SportingFlyer has created 7 new subpages for this portal. 6 of those pages contain content forked from articles.  How do you propose that the community will keep those 6 new content forks updated in accordance with their articles?
 * I AGF that the intention is for this portal to actually offer a broad overview of Jordan rather than has-non-zero-content-so-don't=delete placeholder, and that there will be therefore be dozens more such subpages content-forked from an article. Who will maintain these dozens of content forks on an ultra-low-traffic page? (Only 12 pageview per day).
 * WT:WikiProject Jordan is moribund. The last 2 substantive posts there (i.e. not notifications of processes) were in November 2016 & September 2017. So where's the maintainer going to be found? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry myself, but that's not an actual apology - you apologize, and then double down on your hostility towards myself and Northamerica1000 simply because we have the gall of disagreeing with you. If it's not obvious, I'm currently maintaining the portal. I've had time in bits in pieces tonight, so it's coming together slowly. Also, these aren't content forks. You're again throwing out arguments against all portals in an attempt to get rid of this one. I had hoped in the conversations earlier on this talk page we would get closer to at least some sort of understanding on these things but you're being very aggressive in your deletion of this to the point of hostility. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not intended to be an apology. I stand by what I said, but am sorry that you find it offensive, and hope that you will look beyond your offence to the problem I am raising, viz, that I have a substantive concern here that your enthusiasm is exacerbating a long-term, widespread maintenance problem.
 * Yes, I get that you are working on the portal now. I already noted that.  Are you committing yourself to its long-term maintenance?
 * And yes, those subpages are content forks. They are summaries of existing Wikipedia pages, replicating the function of the lead section of each article. MOS:Lead section says "the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic".  A standalone pages which performs exactly the same function is a content fork.  W already have technology which extracts the lead from the article; why not use that, rather than replicating the forked-subpages model which has a decade-long history of being unmaintained? --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * One of my frustrations noted above is the time spent writing on this MfD, so in lieu of responding I've started improving the portal. I've done what I can for now (two selected articles) but will continue later. I'm also fine with an RfC in general in terms of WP:REDUNDANTFORK to add a list of "what a portal is not". SportingFlyer  T · C  00:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I view Redundant fork (RF) as being taken out of context toward portals; a synthesis. RF was written regarding articles, not portals. Portals utilize content from articles to provide a navigational aid and to present information in an alternate manner. While RF is being used to justify the deletion of automated portals, hopefully this synthesis won't extend to the older, handmade curated portals. North America1000 01:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – At this point, Portal:Jordan does not require reversion to a pre-automated version. The process been accomplished by the process of WP:COPYEDITING to improve it, and the portal has been expanded quite a bit. I plan on expanding it more. My keep !vote still stands, because the topic clearly passes Portal/Guidelines. Furthermore, most broad-topic portals about countries of the world and those about major geographical topics pass Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines to qualify for standalone portals. Some of these portals need updating, checking for errors and correcting them when found, expansion with more content, and reversion to pre-automated versions when feasible. It all takes time, and the constant WP:RUSHDELETE deletion nominations are creating WP:DEADLINES that are difficult to keep up with. I'm not entirely sure why some users feel that most portals should be so eagerly and quickly deleted, but such potentially WP:OVERZEALOUS actions can be harmful to the encyclopedia. To WP:IMPROVE the encyclopedia, why not first post improvement requests to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals, rather than posting yet another nomination for deletion? WP:IMPERFECT also comes to mind. North America1000 12:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a fine collection WP:SOMETHING links, all of which completely ignores the key facts that NA1K is very well aware of:
 * Many hundreds of portals (including lots of country portals) have been unmaintained junk for up to a decade. That it why TTH converted so may of them to automated junk.
 * The fact that a blast of editing under MFD pressure has caused one of these portals to have some updating right now does not alter the fact that hundreds more remain unmaintained, and that even this abysmal one got any attention because one or two editors are running around like firefighters on amphetamines trying to perform emergency surgery
 * That frenzy of emergency surgery is unsustainable, and no long-term plan exists to stop the hundred of portals continuing to decay when the firefighters move on to other firefighting
 * That portals are not encyclopedic content, just a navigational too, so it is simply not possible for any portal deletion to be be harmful to the encyclopedia. They gain utterly risible pageviews, so readers lose nothing.
 * The WP:OVERZEALOUS keep-lots-of-unused-junk approach of portals fans does a lot of damage to the community, by increasing the burden on those who try to clear out junk.
 * It's time for NA1K and the rest of the portal fan club to do their own triaging of portals, rather than complaining about how editors are culling the bottom-level junk after the fans allowed a neglect of neglect to go untracked and then cheered on a spammer who more than tripled the extent of the problem. If I saw that a really serious triaging and grading program was actually between undertaken by NA1k and the other portal fans, then I would reconsider doing my own research and making my own MFDs. But so long as the response is this sort of "it's so unfair" moan, I conclude that the portals fans have no intention at all of fixing the systemic problems ... and when I see that their idea of a "fix" is to start creating dozens more content forks of article ledes to rot over the next decade, I conclude that their WP:OVERZEALOUS keepism is making the problem significantly worse. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Aah, just more of the same tired "portal fan club" stereotyping and typecasting. Too bad. Ad hom finger pointing bores me at this point. Not seeing much at this point about the actual portal being discussed. The closer of the discussion about this portal will decide. North America1000 16:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, NA1K. You make a generalised post moaning that the deletion of junk is happening too fast for your tastes.  Then you moan because the reply addresses the issues you raised. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, all right then. Not looking to feud, but still not seeing anything about why Portal:Jordan should be deleted at this time. Anyway, I actually appreciate some of your points in the various discussions, just so you know. I don't know about the verb "moaning", though, because it's a weasel word that could be pertained to any debate. Just saying... North America1000 17:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Seriously folks, can we all just get back to discussing Portal:Jordan? My understanding of the rationale for deletion was:
 * (1) that portal was automated based on an outline;
 * (2) that the original portal, pre-automation, was at time of nomination too small & outdated to meet the portal guidelines;
 * (3) that the portal had been abandoned in 2006.
 * The portal has since been reverted to the pre-automated state and expanded. I don't think anyone is arguing that Jordan is not in principle a suitable topic for a portal? So the questions we need to answer seem to me to be (1) whether the expansion is adequate to justify the existence of Portal:Jordan, and whether a portal unmaintained since 2006 is likely to attract sufficient ongoing maintenance in future. At the time of typing there are 10 selected articles, 6 bios, 6 topic overviews, 4 selected cities & 7 images, plus quality content and topics. The current version seems to meet the minimum requirements, although further expansion suitable for a national portal is important. News could be added, as could DYKs – as long as they relate to the country! The images need to have formatting added to wrap the image properly. As long as someone is prepared to maintain, continue to expand, and update, my conclusion is keep, pretty much per nomination ("without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time"). Espresso Addict (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I guess I have already waded into these muddy waters enough that I might as well cast a !vote. Here is a semi-detailed partial review of the portal in question:

From Portal:Jordan:
 * 2=

}}

Moving past that odd choice, we have a whole new section dedicated to "Sources." What is in this magical section? Why of course an instance of reflist. How many references are there in this portal? None. Clearly, even with all the attention and flurry of edits recently, no one has actually paid attention to the contents of this portal with any sort of care.
 * Comments: Well,  appears twice in that mess of code right there. One has to wonder why we are still using #ifexist when know the project exists and then needed a second time. Also, pay attention to the fact that Portal:categories is in its own subpage because I am going to get back to that.

Select [►] to view subcategories
 * Now, let's take a look at that subpage. From Portal:Jordan/Categories:


 * Let's compare it to Basic portal start page (the template used to spam portals):
 * Select [►] to view subcategories


 * Comments: Well I have more questions than comments. This subpage was created two days ago. What was necessary about this subpage to warrant its creation? If all category sections are going to look so similar, why was it even necessary to make a subpage? Was the idea rejected that we put all of that same-y code into a template? I digress...


 * Now let's compare the changes made to Portal:Jordan/Topics. 2019:


 * 2018:


 * If one was wondering why the change was necessary, don't bother. It's because no one is planning on maintaining this portal. Any unique identity it once had has been torn to shreds. It could not be more apparent to me that all the recent edits to shift things around a bit. It's new ways of writing the same bpsp code.


 * Side note: This portal is the gift that keeps on giving. While I was verifying some of my statements for the below conclusion, I noticed this piece of code:
 * It's like a sign of the things to come! Not only are there no maintainers listed, but the Portal maintenance status is way out of date in one parameter and just dead wrong in the another. It's almost like metaphysical poetry in this regard. Very eloquent.


 * Conclusion: For those who took the dive with me on that journey, you will see why I do not think this portal has really been improved much at all in the last few days in terms of design and code. asks if the recent expansion is worth maintaining the portal. I will say (minus the article-selection type of content) that I feel it was just a squib. No one still has stepped up to maintain this portal, and we have only gotten this far because the portal had to be nominated for a second time. The country of Jordan deserves better than this. WP:TNT and start anew if needed, but don't keep junk no one is using around please. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm truly puzzled about this comment. What is your deletion rationale, exactly? Who gives a **** about the framing code? The content is all on the subpages. It's like saying delete a table because it uses the standard wikicode. Please unpack your argument a bit more. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @: It's evidence towards an incomplete, rushed, and hacked up portal. My rationale is pretty much: it is unmaintained, is uncarefored, and needs WP:TNT. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - As already said in many previous discussions, the keep and expand !votes are !votes to be discarded. Because the way to parse these keep and expand !votes is "I, the Lord of the Castle, decide to keep, while you, the peones down the hill, are required to do the expanding work". Here, there is nothing to parse, we have directly: one could ask why the user that pointed out all of the problems above didn't simply correct them at the source, and instead chose to keep the errors in place as a justification for deletion. It seems that User:Northamerica1000 has difficulties to understand that this hierarchical pattern is not the way this wiki works. On the contrary, Wikipedia is --like it or not-- based on crowd sourcing. And --like it or not-- crowd sourcing requires crowd. According to [|Portal:Jordan wmflabs], this Portal:Jordan is absolutely deprived of readership and has only 13 views a day, in the last three months before MfD discussion, versus 5426 views for the article Jordan. The key point to understand why this Portal:Jordan is in such a shameful state is simply to understand that TWELVE readers do not make a crowd.
 * Instead of that, we got a great vaudeville. Beside just more of the same tired "portal fan club" stereotyping and typecasting that seems to be a misswriting of just more of the same tiresome "portal fan club", stereotyping and typecasting, the automated keepers of broken portals have issued the following pompous rant: It takes a lot more time to properly expand a portal compared to the time it takes to type out a deletion nomination and for a relatively small group of "portal deletionists" to subsequently state "delete per nom" along with some other minor comments (an exact quote, as asserted by using tq,  not a sarcastic summary of my own) . Nevertheless, it seems that the subsequent Jordan curve was a sufficient minor comment to COMPULSE our Lords of the Castle to put at least one of their precious feet in the mud of the trenches. It was so urgent to erase their tracks after giving such an obvious proof they are emitting groupthink comments instead of doing their homework and specifically evaluate the objects under discussion. Pldx1 (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:DEL: Reasons for deletion include... Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia WP:DEL: Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace WP:POG: The portal layout should be complete or there should be ongoing efforts to make the portal layout complete. The portal should be maintained and serve a useful purpose. If or when this base level criteria is met, I will happily change my !vote in a heartbeat. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Link - Quite a year later, the following WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-05-24/WikiProject report is of interest. Pldx1 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – I just noticed that many Jordan-related article lack a link to the portal, so I've been adding the link here and there. The presence of links is typically associated with higher page views, whereas no links typically equates to fewer page views. North America1000 15:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I took a fresh look and ignored the bulk of the comments above. Looks like a good portal, looks like good content.  Any issue I can find is an editing issue and not a deletion issue.  As for the comments about the style-automation-framing code-whatever, these are variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are just opinions that vary from one person to another.  I see no policy violation, I see no guideline that is broken, and I see no reason to delete.  Nor do I see any reason that this discussion has exploded into a novel.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion is about whether something should exist, not about the quality/content of what's there (unless it's blatant spam/vandalism obviously). Content issues are not a valid rationale, they're a reason to fix it. The deletion policy is very clear: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." WaggersTALK  09:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Deletion is suitable for this portal. I will quote the following policies in favor of deletion in response to this.
 * Firstly thanks for taking the time and effort to find some deletion-policy based rationale, it's genuinely refreshing in these discussions at the moment.
 * Re:14, Everything on this portal page is part of Wikipedia; there's no content that isn't pulled from an article, list, topic, template or elsewhere that constitutes part of the encyclopaedia. So specifically which content at Portal:Jordan are you referring to here? Specifically, that part of the deletion policy refers to WP:NOT - which bit of that do you think is being violated here? I'm genuinely curious.
 * Re:13, again what specifically is breaching that criterion and how? This is a portal, in the portal namespace, and #13 specifically and exclusively relates to the article, template, user and project namespaces, not the portal namespace. But even it it did apply, there's no "established separate policy" for portals. There probably should be one, but obviously that's a different topic.
 * Finally you talk about WP:POG which is a content guideline not a deletion policy. The very first sentence states that the page includes general guidelines and best practices - akin to WP:MOS for articles. Failing to meet WP:MOS is not a valid deletion criteria for articles, and by the same token a portal not meeting the gold standard best practice guidelines is not a reason to delete it. As I said above, the deletion policy is very clear: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". Editing can improve this page.
 * Don't get me wrong, I agree that the portal needs some work. But that work is editing, not deleting. W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  11:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Waggers. Thanks for being yet another Lord of the Castle who agree that the portal needs some work. But the question here is rather: do you agree to be one of the peones down the hill who will do the job ? Because a portal is required to be a functional navigation tool. And this one is not. Pldx1 (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pldx1, yes absolutely. I'm a member of WikiProject Portals where we've been working hard, and making great progress, at minimising the manual intervention required for maintaining and updating portals, and devising quality and priority scoring systems to identify which portals we need to work on. I'll be happy to look at this portal personally and try to get it up to the standards we're aiming for based on the content that's available on the subject matter. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  21:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I find it completely counterfactual — to the point of near-fantasy — that you claim that WikiProject Portals where we've been working hard, and making great progress, at minimising the manual intervention required for maintaining and updating portals, and devising quality and priority scoring systems to identify which portals we need to work on.
 * The reality I have seen is four thousand junk automated portals spewed out, several hundred more converted to a junk automated format, while hundreds more old portals remain abandoned, some times for over a decade, often without even forming a coherent start point.
 * I have found no grading system apart from the abandoned featured portals system, no systematic identification of broken and abandoned portals. Even the rudimentary tracking tracking of pages used by the portal was added by me, an outsider (see Category:Automated portal pages tracking and Category:Portal with subpages tracking), and I also found over 200 portals which were not even in Category:All portals].
 * All the cleanup of junk which has happened in the last two months has been led by editors who are not involved with the project, often the face of howls of outrage and abuse from some members of the project.
 * The project newsletters over the last year have all been about quantity, and even after this huge cleanup, 1127 of the ~1400 remaining portals remain in Category:Unassessed Portal pages.
 * If you think I have missed something, please point it out ... but right now I see nothing to support your claims. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 4 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.