Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 March 24.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Note that MfD is not a proper venue to discuss a project's assessment system. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom Importance Portals

Withdrawn by Nom It has become clear that the WikiProject Portals assessment system is very inconsistent and therefore a poor way to group nominations. I'd prefer to leave this open for the rest of the seven days for additional comments though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 07:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This portals were assessed by WikiProject Portals as "Bottom" importance (below Top, High, Medium and Low). Bottom Portals are "Portals on niche topics; typically individual (or small groupings of) people, places, and things – including film, television, and book series" which means they conflict with the portal guidelines which specify portals that will attract readers and editors. These portals are found in Category:Bottom-importance Portal pages and were generally assessed by the main proponents of portals

The portal creators are a little behind on assessing importance because Category:Unknown-importance_Portal_pages has 4,699 unassesed, but we need to start somewhere. Legacypac (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is User:Legacypac saying that the portal people are saying that these portals are useless? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion of Portal:Anime and manga That is not a niche topic nor individual by any means with over 14,000 articles to its name (and constantly growing).--十八 21:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion of Portal:Anime and manga This is an actively used portal here with thousands of assessed articles, please strike it from the MfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've striken Portal:Anime and manga as it appears to be improperly assessed. I'll raise the importance class on it and unmark it for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Jane Austen, a portal based on a level 3 vital article that dates to 2012 with 11 FAs/FLs/GAs and many more high-quality articles as well as considerable reader interest. If this has been assessed as low then I think the portal assessment needs refining/ditching. As a side issue the portal lacks a deletion notice. Some of the other lit ones appear viable too, Harry Potter for example, which dates from 2006 pends off a level 4 vital article and has plenty of available content including 30 FAs/FLs/GA. Possibly Narnia too. In fact I'm tempted to say the whole list is poorly chosen as several others look very plausible: Battleships has an immense list of high-quality content, and plenty of people seem interested in that area, Saint Petersburg looks well developed, and Abu Dhabi might have been ok before it was broken. I have not got time to review them all. I also think bundling such a diverse group under the header Bacon is not reasonable. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon is just the first one so it created the page name. The heading is clear but I'm not looking to cause any confusion so I'll move the whole page. If the assessment system is broken that is an issue that brings into question the portals assessed at higher levels of importance. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think these should be bundled separately by topic. Unlike your other nominations there's no consistency of topic and a broad range of importance. The initial inclusion of Anime & Manga suggests that the assessment is simply random. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I bundled this small batch because they were all assessed the same. If they should be assessed the same Bottom level is why I bundled them. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We both agree that the judgement of the portal project is not to be relied upon. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of Jane Austen portal, because Jane Austen stands alone as an author. As to Harry Potter, Narnia, is there a fantasy portal for them? Merge three authors into a Fantasy portal. Those two and J R R Tolkien were made into movies in the 21st century, a common experience of a generation. Why not tie them together, as they are tied together by the timing of the movies, though not the novels. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a LOT of specific food portals but only Bacon is assessed as Bottom importance. It's weird frankly. Also lots of bands but only AC DC is assessed this low. Generally I believe the author's or band's page does a much better job then any portal. Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On authors, I don't necessarily agree. The article on Jane Austen, whilst a GA that appears to adequately cover her life, is not a good introduction to her works, their subject, style, innovations & place compared with contemporary writing, their long, complex critical history, the plethora of adaptations, nor the cult of Jane Austen. It is a huge topic, on which thousands of books have been written. Moreover, if one is interested in Austen at the "whoah, Colin Firth is hot!" level (and many are), a long detailed prose article with little on the modern adaptations is not at all what you are looking for. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Struggling to understand why this collection of pages was nominated. We have Category:Bottom-importance Comics articles which has over 2000 entries but AFAIK they haven't been declared useless. Remember that Deletion is not cleanup. The better thing to do would be to reassess the pages.--Auric talk 11:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I wonder if, as the nominator has pointed out, the "Bottom" importance assessment has been applied in an irrational way (i.e., that Bacon is tagged as Bottom, but all other specific food portals are tagged higher), it might not be the criteria we ought to be using to determine whether a portal should be deleted or not. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First off, for clarity, I created :Portal:The Prisoner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I followed what I believed were correct Portal processes for creating this portal and then updated the Talk page to 'Bottom'. It seems that through my own endeavours to categorise as such this portal gets roped into being nominated for deletion. Had I decided to instead list as 'Low-importance' it would have been omitted (for now at least). So, have a look at the Low-importance portals list and witness a large number that have less content than The Prisoner one (e.g. :Portal:Adam Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), :Portal:Air Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and the classic :Portal:Bedding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and there's plenty plenty more). I just think there needs to be a far better way of assessment here. Also, there clearly needs to be more information on the Portal creation page as following the "How to make a good portal" means a lot of potential creators may well think their portal (though niche) has value and follows rules and is worth inclusion. As for understanding WP:MEATBOT etc they not great examples of plain English TBH. Portals obviously need better assessment and clearer instructions. Should :Portal:The Prisoner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) get deleted then so be it but I do wish that better portal instructions had been in place before I wasted several hours on the 'Did You Knows'... Londonclanger (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Looking through these examples, it suggests the problem is with the evaluation system. Qwirkle (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jane Austin, Harry Potter, Academy Awards (+redirect), College basketball, Sacramento, Saint Petersberg, Abu Dhabi. If we're going to have Portals these all have significant enough content to populate such a space. No opinion on the rest simply because I haven't looked at them but would guess they would likely be delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all as a class, these are very disparate portals that have been incorrectly bundled. Keep Jane Austin, Harry Potter, Abu Dhabi, College basketball and Academy Awards specifically as these are very significant topics about which there is ample scope for a portal. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a grab bag that includes some hugely popular topics that have remained so for decades (Bacon, Harry Potter, Narnia, College basketball, most of the rest). Improvement, not deletion, is the best course of action for these. RobDuch (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A. R. Rahman. This person is popular in India and portal has enough significant content as well as topics. Mr. Smart LION 04:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.