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 . Has been reworked and is now being maintained, invalidating many of the arguments for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Nuclear technology/Intro[edit]

Portal:Nuclear technology/Intro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Problematic intro to a portal with zero references. It is advocacy and because this page has so few watchers, it does not get the scrutiny of normal articles. Legacypac (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Deleting the separate intro page would create a red-linked transclusion on the main Portal:Nuclear technology page, breaking the portal. A solution to concerns about the introduction page would be to WP:COPYEDIT it, rather than deleting it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope the plan is to translude the intro of Nuclear technology - which needs work itself. Did you want to bundle the whole portal into this nomination? Legacypac (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a content fork of the pages it refers to. In general, these old content forking portals should be archived. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Conditional delete as a content fork per SmokeyJoe, but only after improving the lead of the Nuclear technology article and transcluding it into Portal:Nuclear technology using ((Transclude lead excerpt)) or similar. Certes (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, following a comment below: my !vote applies only to /Intro; I do not advocate deleting the entire portal of which it is a subpage.Certes (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Now changing my !vote because /Intro has been edited to address the main concern. Although my suggestion above could still be implemented by copy-pasting /Intro into the parent portal which transcludes it and deleting /Intro, there is no longer any reason to do so as it would have no visible effect. As is customary, references appear in the articles' body text rather than in the leads which are transcluded in /Intro. Rewording POV text in a neutral way is a better solution than deleting the entire page. Certes (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional delete as per Certes, "but only after improving the lead of the Nuclear technology article and transcluding it into Portal:Nuclear technology using ((Transclude lead excerpt)) or similar." Makes sense. Struck my initial !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The portal hasn't been maintained, but I'm willing to work on it now. The intro can be easily rewritten to meet any objections. Portal intros, like leads, don't normally have references being a summary of the parent article. I have brought the Manhattan Project articles to a featured topic, Wikipedia:Featured topics/History of the Manhattan Project, and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom/archive1 ia a candidate. All of the articles in the Template:Manhattan Project navbox have been improved to GA or FA standard. In all we have over 50 FAs, so it should be possible to show one per week in rotation. One of them is on the front page right now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Alternative proposal for consideration: Replace the content with a ((Transclude lead excerpt)) template transcluding of the lead of Nuclear technology. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably ok and can be done on the mainpage of the portal. I think there is enough scope and high quality content to build a good portal on this topic. Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doing that but on the main portal page is what I was trying to suggest above. However, it would show only the lead, which is currently 38 words and needs expanding first. Certes (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, deleting this page needlessly breaks old revisions of Portal:Nuclear technology. There are both advantages and disadvantages to automated transclusion, but if the lead is suitable and the article is stable, it should be fine to use ((Transclude lead excerpt)) here. The "advocacy" in the nomination probably refers to this unreverted edit. Instead of this MfD, a revert would have done the trick. —Kusma (t·c) 20:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Delete - I am confused as to whether we are proposing to delete a lead page or a portal. Until the relationship can be explained and resolved, it appears that the existing situation is too confused. If the scope of the portal and the subpage can be explained, I may strike or change this !vote, but, at present, we have a mess, and I can't trust the portal advocates to keep any word to clean it up. We already know that they are asking for more trust in their technical skill and their transparency than we have seen. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope of this MfD is restricted to the intro subpage. The portal itself is not up for deletion. The computer-generated ((mfd)) notice (which in turn uses ((pagetype))) where it says "portal page" may have been misleading. The intro subpage is one of the subpages of the portal. Each of the boxes that you see on the portal page is a subpage. The intro subpage is merely the text in the topmost box. I would very much like to keep the intro subpage rather than change the structure of the portal. I don't see "advocacy" as being a reason to delete a page as it is so WP:SURMOUNTABLE - easily addressed by rewriting the text - and additional scrutiny is provided by having the text on an article page rather than just the portal subpage. (This change has already been made by Auric [1] - the text you now see is from the Nuclear technology page.) I've had this portal in my sights since 2012. You have my word that I will clean it up. You may not trust me, but I stand on my record. I have already begun work on the portal. The selected biography has changed, and will now change on a weekly basis. The rest will follow in short order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is this is an abandoned misleading page. If someone plans to fix it I'm less concerned. It appears to be a valid portal topic, assuming we need portals, which I'm yet to be convinced about. Legacypac (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The intro page has already been fixed. It now transcludes the intro of Nuclear technology. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Now Keep. Struck my above !vote. The Introduction page now transcludes content from the main Nuclear technology article and the Nuclear power article, as per this edit that occurred on 25 March 2019, which added ((Transclude lead excerpt|Nuclear technology|paragraphs=1-2))<br/>((Transclude lead excerpt|Nuclear power|paragraphs=1-2)). Concerns about the content of the introduction can be addressed by copy editing the lead sections of those articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Until someone else copy edits the lede of the main article having no idea that it is scrapped and sculptured for this portal. You know, because anyone can edit Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your original argument was that the portal "page has so few watchers, it does not get the scrutiny of normal articles." Now it does, because it is a normal article. Vandalism and suppressing WP:FRINGE views from the coal advocates can be handled through our normal editorial processes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 31 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.