Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Muhammad (3rd 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Muhammad

 * – (View MfD)

Individual nomination from Miscellany for deletion/Biography portals. Ping participants

Biographical Portal("per se" a narrow topic), not meets WP:POG. Redundant portal to the article. Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I strongly disagree with the assertion that this is a narrow topic.
 * Muhammad was the prophet who founded Islam, which has over 1.9 billion followers or 24.4% of the world's population. That's plenty broad enough for me.
 * There may be other problems with this portal which justify deletion, or maybe it would be better merged to Portal:Islam. But I don't buy the "too narrow" argument. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:BrownHairedGirl, your 1st para above might be relevant if this MFD was about Portal:Islam, but it isn't. Re your 2nd para, what would it actually mean to merge a portal? DexDor(talk) 20:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @DexDor, I just checked Category:Muhammad and its subcats. There are several hundred articles within its scope. without straying too far into loosely-related territory.  That's certainly broad enough to get enough articles to make a portal, but it is less than I expected.   Previous experience of portals scrutinised at MFD is that the number of articles in scope needs to be well into the thousands, and preferably well into the tens of thousands, to make a viable portal.  So I have struck my comment.
 * A merge would mean that some or all of the topics which form apart of the portal are moved to become part of the target portal.-- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Brown HairedGirl  Please read my statement below and you will learn about the other problems this portal has. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose at least without a better deletion rationale. DexDor(talk) 20:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @DexDor Please read my statement below and reconsider your vote. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose struck pending a review of the more detailed deletion rationales presented below. DexDor(talk) 08:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: I checked the portal against the circumstances listed in WP:POG in which such a page would survive a deletion discussion, and this is what I found:
 * Selected article count: ❌. There are only five selected articles; of those, one is a good article, one is B-class, and the remaining three are C-class.
 * Active maintenance: ❌. Creator created the portal in February 2015, but only maintained it for a month; they were last active in late 2018 with one edit in January 2019. No other maintenance has been made to the portal outside of drive-by semi-automated edits.
 * Pageviews: ❌. Portal's average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019 make up approximately .203% of the parent article's average daily pageviews in the same time period, already ridiculously below what could be considered abysmal.
 * So yeah, I'd say there's a solid reason to delete this. ToThAc (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This junk portal failing WP:POG has been abandoned for nearly fours years, save numerous one off updates in May 2018 by a passing editor who added 13 automated transclusions on the wives of Muhammad in less then an hour, the next day added a picture gallery, and a few days later made a handful of edits. They never touched it again. The article and companion sup-pages and the main page itself are littered with dozens of references or red links to non-existent articles. The one DYK is fake, but far more alarmingly it's implying the historical worth of Islam's chief Prophet Muhammad is greater than Judaism's chief Prophet Moses and Christianity's chief Prophet Jesus without any reliable backing. Religious nationalism has no place on Wikipedia. The second picture was deleted from commons in June 2018 and the blank sub-page has not been updated or removed. Since 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Islam90, who created it in Feb. 2014 and last updated it in Oct. 2014. Their last Wikipedia edit was in January.
 * It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This decrepit portal has had nearly four years of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 17 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Muhammad had 8,357 views per day in the same period). WP:POG also requires that portals be associated with a wikiproject, but WikiProject Muhammad is just a redirect to WikiProject Islam, where there has only ever been two conversations about the portal. The first was that the portal was a solo effort by its creator, not broad enough and should be deleted. The second was a conversation surrounding a dispute around including pictures of Muhammad on portals etc. since it violated a particular editors religious beliefs.
 * Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly four years of hard evidence shows Muhammad is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers, and the multiple religious controversies surrounding this portal are not worth the non-existent benefit. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Newshunter12, you describe the portal as "junk" and "decrepit", but I'm not seeing that. In particular, there are no redlinks showing on the portal page. A portal about a person who died thousands of years long ago is unlikely to need frequent updates. IMO a claim that the portal is abandoned needs evidence that maintenance that should have been done (e.g. reverting obvious vandalism, making important updates) hasn't been. I don't think this (or any other) portal is useful, but the argument to delete it should be accurate. DexDor(talk) 09:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @DexDor I never said every part of the portal had red links, only some of the sub-pages do, but the main page does have references (as do many of the sub-pages), which is obvious maintenance that hasn't happened, so I lumped it in with the redlink issue which can be seen here, on a bio that appears on the main page. Speaking of accuracy, Muhammad died less then 1400 years ago, not "thousands of years ago" like you claimed. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Showing references isn't a serious error (such as showing out of date info) and readers/editors unfamiliar with portals probably wouldn't care much. Redlinks in articles that are copied/transcluded into the portal isn't as bad as redlinks in the portal structure itself (as seen in portals abandoned half complete). "thousands" corrected. DexDor(talk) 17:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I concur with User:BrownHairedGirl as to "broad topic". Arguing that a portal should be kept or deleted because it is or is not a "broad subject area" is abstract thinking of the sort defined as a priori by philsophers (who are experts in abstract thinking).  Whether a topic is broad enough should be defined by whether the coverage of the topic by the portl is broad enough.  The portal guidelines specify a minimum of 20 articles.  Article count, like page views and maintenance, can be measured.  An analysis will follow.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon I'm certainly not saying this topic isn't subjectively broad, but it does not at all meet WP:POG's definition of broadness. WikiProject Muhammad couldn't make it on its own and years of hard evidence shows neither can this portal. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Newshunter12 - I do not find arguing over what is a broad subject area in the abstract to be useful. That argument has almost always worked in favor of keeping cruddy portals.  I don't know how you apply the portal guideline's definition of broadness.  I prefer observation-based and numbers-based tests, and the test for a broad subject area should be whether there are at least 20 and preferably more articles.  I said that an analysis will follow.  If you have a different objective test of broadness, please explain it.  If you prefer to use a different subjective test, I will disagree.  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks?  I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Islam), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Metrics for Islamic Portals

 * Weak Delete without prejudice to re-creation using a design that does not involve forked subpages, and that does include a maintenance plan. The portal has 29 articles, which is more than is required, but has low readership and a history of inconsistent maintenance. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a person shouldn't have a portal.Catfurball (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as its content can be covered in Portal:Islam. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  16:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and per NH12. Too narrow a topic, not maintained, low readership, which adds up to a clear fail of the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.