Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Japan

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Prostitution in Japan


Per the well attended and discussed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada we don't need this portal either. Portal:Prostitution already covers the general topic and there is nothing that this portal provides that the article at Prostitution in Japan does not do better. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Could be discussed together Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom and Portal:Prostitution in India.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd advise against that: Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom is actually pretty well made. —Kusma (t·c) 18:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Well attended and discussed" is perhaps bending the truth too far given only 8 editors replied to the last discussion. That aside, given that the portal is likely to be deleted as per WP:X3, it seems pointless to discuss it here.--John B123 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 8 participants is pretty good for MfD. Better than most AfDs get. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That does surprise me, not that I disbelieve you, but the few MfD/AfDs I have got involved in have generally had noticeably more than that. It does make me question the validity of the AfD/MfD process. Of the 36 million registered editors on the English WP, even if only 1,000 are "active", 6 or 8 editors is hardly representative. That is made worse on occasions when people with strong views against a subject jump in to ensure articles related to that subject are always deleted irrespective of the article's individual merits. Effectively WP policy gets decided by a handful of editors. --John B123 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - User:John B123 - Do you have a better idea, either about MFD in general, deletion of portals, or AFD in general? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In any other circumstances the opinions of half a dozen people, even if unanimous, would be dismissed as unreliable as it's too small to be considered a representative sample. I'm not sure how other editors could be encouraged to join in, but if that did happen, having a large number of people involved in a discussion tends to make it unmanageable. RfCs with a lot of people contributing tend to end up a fragmented jumble. (I take my hat off the the admins who close these discussion for having the patience to sort through and extract what is significant in making a decision.) My suggestion would be for a committee to decide on deletions. Editors could still nominate and put forward views for or against, but the result would be based on the arguments for and against, taking into account WP policies and guidelines, rather than the "consensus" of a handful of editors. So comments giving a reason for keep/delete are considered, but those "as per above" comments, or simply repeating an already submitted view, are ignored. The decision is therefore based on merit not numbers.
 * Portals are a tricky matter. A good portal is a useful addition to the subject's articles, a poorly made one isn't. The poor ones are usually created by the automatic process, but then not developed. Sticking strictly to policies and guidelines, I'm not sure there are grounds to delete them as poor quality is covered by WP:ATD, improve not delete. That said, as an exceptional circumstance, I would support a mass deletion of the numerous poor quality (such as this one) portals recently created by one editor. Whilst this may be seen as a conflict in my views, I oppose deletion singularly of these portals as it may prejudice future creation of a properly made portal of the same name. With regard to do we need narrower portals in addition the to the main portal, then there is no simple yes or no answer. In this case I think prostitution in Japan has enough unique attributes and sufficient articles about it to justify a portal. If we were discussing say prostitution in Jamaica, then there is very little to justify its own portal. There is precedent to support this in Portal:Chess which although a board game, is unique enough to justify its existence in addition to Portal:Board games. Another point to consider is that whilst a subject may not be of interest to many people, it may be to others. For example, a portal on marbles would probably not be of interest to the majority readers, but for those who are interested in the subject a portal would be great. If we follow a policy of "mainstream" only, then there are thousands of articles that need to be deleted. (I mention this as part of the consensus to delete Portal:Prostition in Canada was that people are not interested in a portal about prostitution). --John B123 (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:John B123 - The idea of having a committee decide on deletions is essentially a version of the idea of having an editorial board for content disputes. It is an idea that is repeatedly proposed, usually not in sufficient detail to be worth discussing, sometimes in reasonable detail.  It seems to be contrary to the thinking of the majority of editors of the English Wikipedia.  In any case, I think that any such experiment, if there is to be one, should not be originally about deletion, because the committee would polarize into inclusionists and deletionists.  I would suggest that any further discussion of such a concept can be at one of the Village Pumps, or at a deletion project talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whilst the idea of issues on WP being decided by a consensus of editors is admirable, it's somewhat of a Utopian concept as very few editors actually join in the discussions. If those who regularly contribute to deletion discussions refrained from joining in for a month, I suspect there would be a lot of nominations with little or no replies. I'm sure this would be true of any other types of discussions on WP. My experience of the Village Pump is that it too is dominated by regulars and anything that "goes against the flow" is quickly swamped by opposition. John B123 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:John B123 - It sounds as if you are saying that the way it is is the way it is. It doesn't sound as if you are proposing a change to anything.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - As argued above, without addressing whether we need Portal:Prostitution, and with an advance objection to any bundling. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Request for clarification: I can make no sense of the second sentence of the proposal. In a proposal to delete "Portal:PiJ", it says there is nothing "this portal" does that is not done better by "Portal:PiJ". However you interpret "this portal", it makes no sense. Otherwise my response to the question would be to ask, "In what way would deleting Portal:PiJ make the encylopedia better?" Imaginatorium (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I mistyped with portals on my mind. I meant to link the article Prostitution in Japan and have made that correction with this edit. Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Someone once informed me (actually I misinterpreted them) that WP:WIR's list of Japanese women who should get articles consisted mostly of pornographic actresses, which struck me as racist, sexist, and somehow typical of English Wikipedia. The existence of this portal seems no different. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per other comments above. I see no valid reason to keep it. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 03:47, 8 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.