Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lepidoptera

 __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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Lepidoptera

 * – (View MfD)
 * UnitedStatesian (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete Subject is more than adequately covered in Portal:Insects, so fails the breadth-of-subject-area and lack-of-redundancy requirements of the WP:POG guideline. Single-page reboot of the former multi-page Portal:Butterflies and moths. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Question - What are ants doing as a general article in this portal? Hymenoptera are not Lepidoptera.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Old portal,  0 subpages, created 2015-07-28 18:15:55 by User:Abyssal. According to the present version of this portal, Central America, blood cell, fairies are various kinds of lepidoptera. Kill this shit. Portal:Lepidoptera. Pldx1 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC) underlined part added 07:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC) by Pldx1 (talk)
 * Delete this buggy portal Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The ~6 articles it offered me included temperate climate and domestic pigeon.  The version which TTH created at least works, but only as WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Template:Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths). The pre-TTH manual format (see last version) is hard to evaluate because most of the subpages don't exist.  The portal has been moved several times, so it's hard to tell whether they ever existed. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs)
 * Comment. This is another one where page moves have obscured things. There were 49 selected articles, but I can't see what their content was, if any. All the comments above on content seem to refer to the automated version. On scope, I can't see any reason whatsoever to delete. There are 180,000 butterflies/moths in 126 families, and we have more than a hundred thousand articles, including at least 20 FA/GA, plus beautiful images. There is a Wikiproject:Lepidoptera which looks to be still be active, with 106,350 project-tagged articles; they should have been notified. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying them, sorry I mussed it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, someone there might remember the original portal before it was vandalised. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Early relisting to give WikiProject time to comment

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note that this portal is associated with WikiProject Lepidoptera, though is not currently on the WikiProject Lepidoptera talk page template. --Nessie (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Protected edit request to add that made on the project template's talk page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - si non e vero e ben trovato is not a policy. And therefore saying that it existed a good looking original portal [that] was vandalised by the usual suspect is only a sequence of empty words. If you look at the subpages of Portal:Butterflies and moths, you can see that (1) Portal:Butterflies and moths/Introduction existed, and was deleted ; (2) Portal:Butterflies and moths/Butterfly and moth articles exists and calls 49 subpages ; (3) none of the Portal:Butterflies and moths/Butterfly and moth articles/nnn pages ever existed ; (4) page Portal:Butterflies and moths/Selected picture exists ; (5) All pages Portal:Butterflies and moths/Selected picture/nnn were n<=100 have been created and survived till now; (6) All of these pages were created by a robot 3 August 2015, during 18:24-18:33. All of the n>1 were created with using "Description" as description, and "Photo credit: name" as credits. And that's all. That is all of the abandoned thing that User:Espresso Addict tries to sell us as a functional portal vandalized by TTH !  On the contrary, TTH took the right editorial decision when nuking this former version. Saying there are 180,000 butterflies/moths in 126 families, and we have more than a hundred thousand articles, including at least 20 FA/GA, plus beautiful images seems to be the first part of an implied syllogism whose conclusion would be "and therefore one of these butterflies will stand up and maintain the portal". A mistaken belief, it seems. Pldx1 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks to @Pldx1 for that research, which confirms that the previous manual version of this portal was only an abandoned shell.
 * The existence of Portal:Butterflies and moths/Butterfly and moth articles confirms the page names which would have been used, but every one of them is a redlink with no history of deletion. The manual portal was simply an abandoned draft which couldn't display even one version of a working page. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs)


 * Comment. Per Pldx1's point (3) & BrownHairedGirl's comment above: the articles might well have once been under Portal:Butterflies and moths/Selected article/1 or at any of a number of other synonyms for both the article names and the portal names, or different ways of randomising (eg my month). I don't care to do combinatorial article searches manually.
 * I won't comment on Pldx1's comment any further, except to say, please don't misquote me, put words in my voice I didn't say, or quote my comments in other fora as if I said them in this one. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Espresso Addict, sorry to see that you and @Pldx1 have crossedwires. I value the skills and good faith of both of you, so I hope that can be resolved.
 * Anyway, I looked at the history of the portal. It shows that the page was created on 28 July 2015‎, and the last version of the portal edited by the creator  was this on 12 November 2015‎.  Thereafter it was only formmatting tweaks, on the path to automation.
 * That version's has plenty of subpage calls. So I went looking at Abyssal's portalspace page creations in that period, to see if I can find any variation of "butterfl"or "moth" or "lepidopt"
 * 1 July 2015 – 3 August 2015: Portal:Lepidoptera created as redirect to Portal:Butterflies and moths, Portal:Butterflies and moths/box-header, Portal:Butterflies and moths/box-footer, Portal:Butterflies and moths/Selected picture and subpages Portal:Butterflies and moths/Selected picture/1 — Portal:Butterflies and moths/Selected picture/100
 * 4 August 2015 – 25 November 2015: Portal:Butterflies and moths/Butterfly and moth articles, Portal:Butterflies and moths/Wikimedia, and several redirects to this portal
 * Then I looked at the deleted contributions:
 * 27 July 2015 – 7 December 2015:
 * 15:15, 12 November 2015 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Portal:Lepidoptera (←Redirected page to Portal:Butterflies and moths)
 * 02:22, 7 August 2015 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Portal:Butterflies and moths/Introduction
 * 01:53, 7 August 2015 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Portal:Butterflies and moths/Categories
 * That's it. All permutations checked.
 * The only remaining possibility is that somebody else created the subpages under some name other than that used for other subpages, and they have now been deleted. I think that's extremely unlikely, and even if true, they were never part of the portal, because we can see the histories of Portal:Lepidoptera and of Portal:Butterflies and moths/Butterfly and moth articles.
 * So I can say with 100% confidence that 1) the portal creator Abyssal never created other subpages; 20 if someone else made them, they were under some other name, they were never part of the portal.
 * So with 100% confidence, there never was a working manual portal here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the careful analysis, . Having maintained a portal for well over a decade, I think there are multiple (admittedly relatively unlikely) possibilities that I'm not certain you have ruled out, particularly that the portal was created under a different title, say Portal:Butterflies (but not that) and then badly cut & paste merged without attribution. It would be helpful if were to comment, or someone from the Wikiproject who dates from that era.
 * I continue to believe that the topic is sufficiently broad for a portal, contrary to the nomination. However it would probably at this point be easier to recreate a proper portal from scratch – but that's only sensible if someone from WP:Lepidoptera or WP:Insects were to offer to maintain it. I'd be willing to re-create one, but I can't commit to maintaining another portal at this time. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I originally created this portal as "Portal:Butterflies and moths". Any subpages should be under that name. Abyssal (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) @Espresso Addict, if we base our decisions on edge hypotheses, we go down a bit of a wormhole.  We can rule out the cut-and-paste hypothesis, because a) there are no traces at any plausible alt names, and b) the first version uses "Portal:Butterflies and moths" as the name of all its subpages.
 * Even you retain lingering doubt ... unless and until searches find something, there nothing to keep.
 * I agree that this is a broad enough topic for a portal, and that nom is wrong about that. There are squillions of types, and a long scientific history.  But I am glad that you aren't going to create a new portal without maintainer.  There are too many of those already. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per 's comment & 's further analysis, I'm happy to delete this, unless anyone from a relevant wikiproject wants to argue for essentially recreation, and is prepared to maintain. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear . I promise that, next time, I will use ... seems to be the first part of an implied syllogism whose conclusion would be "and therefore one of these butterflies will stand up and maintain the portal" (my own summary, not a direct quotation). This would be a mistaken belief... Saying that my rhetorical question could be mistaken as a quotation... seems slightly rhetorical, but being more explicit can only help, indeed. Pldx1 (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . The numbers of articles & species were intended to refute the notion of the nominator that a butterfly portal did not conform to the mythical guidelines. I will bear in mind that butterflies are known for their flapping-wings-and-changing-history skills, not their portal-maintenance work (that was monkeys). Espresso Addict (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete based on the above confusing analysis. The history is so confused that I cannot be sure that this portal was ever properly maintained or that it will be maintained and I cannot be sure that this portal will not be maintained.  Maybe one of the butterflies will attempt to stand up and maintain the portal, but the portal will crush the butterfly, and then ants will eat the butterfly.  The confusion creates a non-solid case against the portal.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nuke it - The title may be useful in the future. I believe it can be saved, but only with a fresh start. Let's nuke it and rebuild. InvalidOS  talk  16:12, 26 April 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.