Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Museums

 __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:  keep. Seems like a consensus is developing that this portal can be salvaged since it is, in fact, being salvaged. No other overriding policy or guideline based deletion reason has been stated, so keep this is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Museums


Another drive-by junk portal, created by @The Transhumanist (TTH).. It uses an embedded list (see Category:Automated portals with embedded list) which looks at first glance like the product of some curation, but is actually just an indiscriminate category dump.

It was created in the same slapdash way as Portal:Shipwrecks (see MFD:P:Shipwrecks) and Portal:Habitats (see MFD:P:Habitats) and Portal:Electricity (see MFD:Portal:Electricity) and Portal:Julius Caesar (see MFD:Portal:Julius Caesar)

The technique is that where the eponymous template doesn't exist (there is no Template:Museums), do a quick screenscrape of the eponymous category. In this case Category:Museums is fully diffused, so instead TTH screenscraped Category:Types of museum.

I checked, and the list on the portal page exactly mirrors the state of the category at the time.

The problems with this list include:
 * The set is only types of museum. There is no attempt to cover any other aspects of the topic, such as the history of museums, the design of museums, management and funding of museums, or examples of museums.
 * there might a case for starting with types, if it was done with even basic care, but this is indiscriminate.  It includes:
 * 3 redirects: (Geology museum, Public museum, Rural history museum)
 * 2 individual museums: Illuminare – Centre for the Study of Medieval Art, TU 142 Aircraft Museum
 * 3 lists List of sex museums, List of transport museums, List of national museums
 * 25 articles which are either tagged as stubs or assessed as stub-class

So of the 60 pages listed in the portal, at most 27 have any claim to a place there.

Wikipedia has extensive coverage of museums, so I am sure that a fine portal could be constructed on museums, if and when some editor has the energy to do to actually build, curate and maintain it. But in the meantime, this piece of spam is worse than nothing. It is a disservice to our readers, and no basis for building a decent portal.

So I propose that this junk pseudo-portal be deleted per WP:TNT without prejudice to creating a curated portal not based on a single other page, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (changing my !vote) Keep. Thanks to a  lot of good work by @Espresso Addict, this portal is now far improved from the spam I nominated a week ago.  Now worth well worth keeping.  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - A portal that duplicates its lead article and lead map does not make a good first impression, and BHG's analysis makes a worse second impression of the portal (although a good first impression of the analysis). I don't think that we should put this portal in a portal museum.  We don't need a silver wrecking ball.  A cast-iron wrecking ball will do.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Automated portal,  0 subpages, created 2018-11-26 06:26:19 by User:TTH, useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality: Portal:Museums. Pldx1 (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment Keep. This is a broad topic, suitable for a portal. However, as the nominator notes, this is a very poor way of generating an embedded list. Is anyone willing to curate this one? Given 's detailed critique, it shouldn't be hard. And I'd note, if this and all the other dozen up since I last looked were not all up together, I might well be prepared to wade in and try to improve this one. It simply isn't possible in the context of the continual stream of MfDs of potentially viable portals at present. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, EA. This is the whole problem with the spam-flood: even where the topics are well-chosen, there are not enough editors willing and able to actually build useful portals on these shells, which is why they remain shells. There's no point in keeping this stuff in the forlorn hope that someone may appear, because the evidence is that except in v rare cases, they don't appear ... and if they do come, they can recreate the shell in seconds. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why I was suggesting the two-stage deletion process. You or I, or any other editor with even a little knowledge of the topic, could flesh this out in an afternoon to a state where it's not embarrassing. But I don't have an afternoon to spare because I've got a browser window groaning with tabs of portals put up at MfD since yesterday afternoon. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, EA, my idea of draftify would have a similar effect. We should probably revive the discussion at WT:WPPORT on implementing that, and see if we can close the wee gap between our two approaches. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have done some work on this. I've added a selected museum box with >50 museums based on visitor numbers, article quality, as well as geographical & topic diversity. There are many more with decent articles, but mainly in the US/UK. I've also hopefully fixed the selected types of museum box so that it now rotates 15 passable articles. I'm willing to do more tomorrow, if people think this is worth salvaging. Our content on other areas mentioned by the nominator ("history of museums, the design of museums, management and funding of museums") seems a bit less easy to find, but I will see what a more careful search can do tomorrow, and try asking at WikiProject Museums. Pinging Espresso Addict (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Espresso Addict - What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you still favour deletion, given that I have spent a couple of afternoons completely redoing the contents? What more content would you like to see? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - as made clear in the nomination, there is sufficient scope for a portal to exist. The nomination itself is based on the content of the portal as it currently stands. The deletion policy says:
 * "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
 * "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases."
 * Nothing in the nomination convinces me that this is a sufficiently severe case to delete the portal. WaggersTALK  15:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Waggers, articles are content, so deleting them removes content.
 * User:Waggers - Everything convinces me that portals that have no maintainers are likely to remain without maintainers. See WP:Waiting for Portal Maintainers.  Many Wikipedia editors are article maintainers.  Editors don't come to Wikipedia to maintain portals.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Portals are not content, so content-based deletion policy does not apply. Portals are a navigational device and/or a showcase for existing content, so the case for their existence depends on whether they do that well enough to add value per WP:PORTAL: "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects".    If they don't do that, they should be deleted, just like we routinely delete redundant or non-defining categories.
 * In this case, the so-called portal adds no value. It's just more drive-by spam.
 * If someone wants to build an actual portal on this topic, it will involve several hours of work. But the only bit here worth keeping is the shell, which can be recreated in seconds simply by typing {{subst:Basic portal start page}} and pressing save. So someone wanting to build a real portal on this topic doesn't need this spammed shell ... and in the meantime it's very unfair to readers to lure them to the page on the false promise that there is an actual portal here.
 * The community has already made it very very clear it doesn't want to retain TTH's spammed portal shells. Sadly, some editors have a bit of an IDHT problem with that. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't buy the "portals are not content" thing. Portals have content, they're not blank pages or even just structural shells. As for the suggestion that WP:DP only applies to mainspace - well, patently false. W<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  16:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, @Waggers. Portals have no content; they simply direct readers to content elsewhere, or display content which is located elsewhere.  If you disagree, then please show me the content in this portal.
 * As to the DP, even if t applied to portals which consist solely of code (like this one), WP:DEL-CONTENT says very clearly "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases".
 * Like most of he other pseudo-portals which you advocated keeping today, this a severe case. It is drive-by spam, crated by a mass spammer, which provides readers with a grossly misleading picture of the topic.
 * Yet you continue to point to WP:DEL-CONTENT as if it placed a total ban on deleting junk pages, which it explicitly doesn't. Please read policies before wandering selectively cherrypicking them. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's rich indeed, coming from someone who just moments ago was arguing that the deletion policy only applies to mainspace. And if User:The Transhumanist was a spammer they would have been blocked from Wikipedia; that accusation is nothing short of a disparaging personal attack and is completely uncalled for.
 * Regarding "cherry picking", I have referred to general principles in the deletion policy that apply as much to portals as anywhere else, not to any obscure cherry-picked part of it. Your suggestion that I have done otherwise is groundless and, frankly, offensive.
 * This is certainly not a severe case. It would take less effort to put right the issues raised in the nomination than it took to create this nomination and argue against every "keep" !vote.
 * I'm afraid your rationale for deletion simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny when read alongside the deletion policy. You can argue against that as much as you like, and continue to assume all sorts of bad faith on part of editors you disagree with, but that fundamental fact remains unchanged, and their so does my !vote. <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  17:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that your repeated misrepresentations of deletion policy don't stand up to scrutiny ... and your continued rejection of the community consensus against retaining driveby spam portals remain IDHT no matter how much you dislike that.
 * I assume no bad faith on your part. Just a determination to wiklawyer your way to impede the cleanout of many forms of the junk which give portalspace such a bad name. I am sure you believe that you are doing this for some noble purpose, but I have yet to see what on earth that is. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Saying there is sufficient scope for a portal to exist is only misleading. What we have is "there is a sufficient scope for a portal could exist". But going from "could exist" to "exist", would require people doing the job, and not simply people repeating "what a great candidate". This could be the difference between Portal:Geophysics and Portal:Museums. Pldx1 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. This portal now has 60 selected museums, 14 general articles, 15 types of museum (severely pruned from the original list) and 50 images in two galleries. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a topic that is very clearly suited to a portal, and it seems to have been improved since the nomination and while it's not yet perfect it does show that deletion is not necessary to resolve the issues it has. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 13 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.