Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rhön

 __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. There seems to be a narrow consensus that this portal should be kept, at least for the time being, because it is actively being maintained. There are concerns that the scope of the topic may not meet the portal requirements, and concerns that the number of redlinks reduce the portal's utility. However, the redlinks can be addressed via normal editing. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Rhön


Older portal full of redlinks and poor formatting. Limited interest to readers as even the head article only pulled 661 pageviews in the last 30 days. Germany is well covered with English language portals anyway. I believe every German state and many informal regions have a portal already. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This heritage portal, which as Legacypac says is oddly formatted, has a lot of redlinks. It appears that User:Bermicourt isn't maintaining it effectively.  The usual comments also apply.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The main problem with this portal is that I haven't finished adding the articles to 'blue the links', but I'm now working on that and have already reduced the number of red links considerably. In addition, I'd just make a couple of responses to your interesting points above. First, the age of a portal is not a factor. Second, the formatting is based on that of the German Wikipedia portal but can be changed; feel free to work with me to do that. Third, when the community voted to keep portals, it recognised that their purpose is wider than just user hits - they are a vital tool for maintaining and improving coverage of a topic. Red links give a clear indication of what still needs working on and an and incentive to provide fuller coverage. Obviously we don't want too many; usually there is a sub-page with a fuller list. That said, I agree there are too many red links on this portal, which is why I'm working on reducing them; there are already 20 or so less. Thanks for flagging this up but, don't worry, I'm on it! Bermicourt (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Bermicourt, Please don't misrepresent WP:ENDPORTALS. At that RFC, were presented with a single proposal '"Should the system of portals be ended? This would include the deletion of all portal pages and the removal of the portal namespace"''.
 * The community did reject the proposal to delete them all. That's what the closer noted
 * The closer did not weigh the discussion to gauge support for a cull.
 * The closer did not weigh the discussion to gauge support for automation of portals, as TTH initiated.
 * The closer did not weigh the discussion to gauge support for a massive expansion, as TTH initiated.
 * The closer did not weigh the discussion to gauge support for keeping low-traffic portals as a tool for editors.
 * We need a further RFC to test some of those points, but please don't cite the RFC as evidence for a question which it wasn't asked.. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment  - Maintained, 21 subpages, -- created 2014-07-04 14:37:29 by User:Bermicourt, maintained by User:Bermicourt : Portal:Rhön. Pldx1 (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bermicourt. – Vami ♜  _IV♠  10:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maintained or not, this portal fails the WP:POG guidance that portals should be for "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".
 * I haven't checked the comments above, but if this one has only one maintainer, that's not a good sign wrt POG.
 * Secondly, it demonstrably fails the requirement that portals should "attract large numbers of interested readers". Here are the January-March daily average viewing figures for the last four years:
 * 2019: 5
 * 2018: 6
 * 2017: 1
 * 2016: 1
 * (If you click through to see the charts, you will see that the figures are so low that they are noticeably affected by spikes which look arise they may arise from editing.)
 * So its very clear that this portal doesn't meet POG. Readers don't want it.
 * I note @Bermicourt's comment that editors use this portal as a tracking page for redlinks (that obviously also accounts for some of the hits, which reinforces my point that pageview numbers this low are significantly distorted by editors' work). That tracking function is obviously an important role, but it doesn't need all the infrastructure of multi-page reader-facing portal.   I have often used lists for such tasks, some in userspace, some as mainspace lists, and some in project space; no portals were needed for those sets of up to a few thousand pages. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - BHG you are being a tad disingenuous. You changed the Portal Guidelines yourself to say that portals should cover "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"', knowing it was contentious, and now you're quoting your guideline amendment back as if it is an agreed community rule which clearly it isn't. In fact the guidelines have been amended numerous times by yourself and LegacyPac without achieving community consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a blatant lie, @Bermicourt.
 * I reverted the guideline to its longterm stable text, after a bunch of unilateral changes by the portalspammer @The Transhumanist.
 * My editsummary reads in full: 'Reverted to revision 718250697 by Tom Morris: Restore 2-year stable version. There is no evidence of broad community consneus to chnage the core guidance "Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", which was removed on 32 May 2018'.
 * I did not any point add a single word of my own to the portal guidelines.
 * It is utterly outrageous that you try to rig a deletion discussion by making a false accusation against me of misconduct, based on clearly-described revert of the unilateral rewrite of those guidelines by the now topic-banned portalspammer. Clean up your act, and withdraw that rubbish. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit of an over-reaction. I'm sorry for misreading your edit, but it's also a lie to suggest I'm "rigging" a deletion discussion. You well know from the reams of pages written at WP:ENDPORTALS that there is no consensus over portal standards and so the guidelines are hardly relevant. That whole area up in the air as you know because we were trying to collaborate on taking that forward. The one thing the community did agree on was to keep portals. That and the fact there are ongoing discussions about what qualifies as a portal means that we should not even be here. Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's a historical work in progress. Number of readers depends on current news/marketing. It's not likely to interest millions of people right now, but it's useful historical information. Is there a tag/flag for that? -- Outlier59 (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep it, for now - I am not convinced that this portal has a sufficiently broad scope to be kept in the long run. But this one clearly don't belong to the current kill all the un-needed and un-maintained portals campaign. In my opinion, maintained means: someone stepped forward and said he will do the job, at least for a reasonable period of time ... and said that at the portal's head page itself, and not only at some random place. Moreover, the very fact this portal is oddly formatted, i.e. formatted by flesh and blood people rather than by automated templates, looks as a Keep rationale, not the contrary. Pldx1 (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete portals such as this which clearly isn't for a broad topic (approx 0.5% of Germany by area) as they are a net negative (e.g. distracting editors from doing something more productive). A portal isn't needed to track redlinks. DexDor(talk) 20:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When I said "Keep" I asked "Is there a tag/flag for this [historical work in progress]?" I asked, because, frankly, I don't know. I'm currently looking into 1800s history stuff. Maybe Wikipedia doesn't want to host this sort of stuff. I don't know. That's why I asked if there's a tag/flag for this stuff. -- Outlier59 (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't keep incomplete portals in portal space but you could use draft space. I'd suggest, however, expanding the appropriate German state portal with this content.  Pretty much all portals need work so concentrating on higher levels makes more sense. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this portal. The corresponding article, Rhön Mountains, is not even a level 5 Vital article, meaning it is not in the top 50,000 most important articles on Wikipedia.  There is no evidence whatsoever that the community has formed a consensus that there in any value a portal on any subject this narrow, nor any pageview evidence that readers value this Portal over the corresponding article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The community has not agreed any standard on what qualifies as wide-enough coverage. That is exactly my point. We are putting the cart before the horse. We should be seeking consensus on guidelines for the creation of new portals, the level of coverage they need to qualify, the standards required of a portal, whether or not they should be maintained by Wiki Projects, and the criteria for deletion. All that's happening here is that we're pre-empting that debate in the hope that we can slide as many deletions through before someone calls a halt. This is simply TTH in reverse. I am not a supporter of the mass creation of portals and have voted to delete both TTH's as well as other auto-portals based on a single navbox. But if you want good, balanced coverage of a topic, properly curated portals are a tremendous aid. The reason there are so many blue links on this portal is that I actively used it to create many of the articles. It enabled me to identify the gaps in coverage and to prioritise my work, creating new articles and extending existing ones. That's one of the major benefits of a portal and one that, in the debate raging to and fro elsewhere, seems to get forgotten about. I've created over 5,000 new articles on Wikipedia and have used portals extensively to shape priorities and achieve balanced coverage of a topic. By contrast, the recent mass of auto-created portals doesn't meet that remit at all and I am a strong supporter of deleting them. They are of limited utility and only do a disservice to other, decently created and maintained portals, which are earning their pay. Of course, there's always more to do, but we don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Bermicourt (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want a page listing topics (to see which are bluelinks and which are redlinks) then either a userpage (if you are working alone) or a wikiproject page (if collaborating with other editors) would be more suitable than pages that (at least in theory) are reader-facing - e.g. because notes could be added. Some examples: WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles, WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Aviators.  Thus, redlink tracking does not make portals (specifically) "a tremendous aid".
 * Another way of looking at it: portals are supposed to be like Wikipedia's main page, but for a specific (broad) topic - how often do you see redlinks on the Main page?  Other editors refer to portals as being a showcase for Wikipedia content about a topic; again, that isn't really compatible with the portal page being used to track redlinks.
 * Re "TTH in reverse" please see the responses to your similar comment at WT:PORT. DexDor(talk) 20:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You couldn't make this stuff up! "Portals are supposed to be like Wikipedia's main page" - you're having a laugh! And when you've created a few thousand articles, you might be qualified to suggest that there are better aids than portals for assisting projects with topic coverage. But since you clearly don't like or use portals - which is okay - please don't lecture those of us who do. Bermicourt (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Portals are pages intended to serve as "Main Pages" for specific topics or areas. They are analogous to Wikipedia's Main Page ....
 * I don't like portals (except perhaps for really broad topics) because of the negative effects they have on readers and other parts of Wikipedia. DexDor(talk) 05:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep (for now). To be clear, I share many concerns of the "Delete" voters about the portal's odd formatting and a scope that may be too narrow for a full portal. This portal also contains some overly detailed sections like lists of all natural regions and motorways. The level of additional detail for these relatively minor aspects seems a bit excessive and is just distracting from other more vital sub-topics. In short: this portal could use some serious structural and content improvements. On the other hand, pages on Wikipedia are works in progress and this portal is actively maintained. Keep it for now, but I wouldn't be opposed to a re-nomination in a few months or a year. The current deletion efforts would be better focussed on clearly broken and abandoned portals with no chance of revival or development (and on further clarifying portal requirements). GermanJoe (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Interesting that the German Wiki portal on which this was based has a starred rating (= 'good' portal). But that may just be for being informative and not necessarily for its format. Appearance is so subjective.Bermicourt (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – too narrow to meet POG. The quality of a portal may improve over time, but the breadth of the scope of the topic will not. Leviv&thinsp;ich 05:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of scope for a portal, and no policy-based reason for deletion has been put forward as I can see. Note that WP:POG is a best practice content guideline, not a deletion policy. WaggersTALK  15:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.