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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Oceanography[edit]

(convenience link: subject article Oceanography)

Delete Another one-click-created single page portal that 1) suffers from all the shortcomings of that class of portals and 2) does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline, and 3) is redundant to Portal:Nautical. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This pseudo-portal draws its article list solely from the navbox Template:Physical oceanography, of which it is therefore a redundant fork, just like the thousands of similar portal created by @The Transhumanist (TTH). (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals by created TTH: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another single-page portal created during the wave of reckless portal creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl; I disagree strongly with the deletion rationales mentioned by the nominator, but the consensus against portals created in his manner is clear. No effort has gone into trying to make this one work, per the fact that the DYKs & news are looking for oceanography which isn't ever going to find anything much. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't care who created it or how it was created or how quickly it was made, as none of those are reasons to delete. It's a good start and we should encourage contributions like this. Oceanography is a wide topic that deserves a portal. It's most certainly a different topic than Portal:Nautical.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, @Paul McDonald. Approximately 4,000 contributions like this have been deleted in the last 6 weeks. (No, I kid you not: four thousand.)

There is a very strong and broad consensus that this type of pseudo-portal is junk. Anyone who wants to create a real portal on the topic can recreate this in seconds: just enter ((subst:Basic portal start page)), and save. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been one to drink the consensus WP:KOOLAID. But here's a question: if anyone can "just enter ((subst:Basic portal start page)), and save" wouldn't that be better-quicker-easier-than running loads of xFDs? I mean, if I did it now for this portal, would that (possibly) be enough? At least on selected portal topics that make sense (I've reviewed the volume of portals created by the enthusiastic portal creator and I can't say that I would have done that volume that way, but "all those others" is a different topic than "this one").--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. WP:CONSENSUS is a core policy, so I'm surprised to see anyone describing it as Kool-Aid. And I think you miss the point of that essay. The principle of deleting automated portals forked from navboxes was overwhelmingly agreed by a huge turnout at one of the biggest mass-MFDs ever, and it's disruptive to try reopening that debate only two weeks later.

Anyway, @Paul McDonald, sorry that my prev reply wasn't v clear. What I meant is that the current pseudo-portal was created with ((subst:Basic portal start page)). So if anyone wants to build a new real portal but somehow thinks that recreating this junk would be a good starting point, then they can re-create it after deletion simply by just enter ((subst:Basic portal start page)), and save.

My earlier reply could be read to give the false impression that this technique would magically create a real portal, which it doesn't. Sorry for the confusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can and does change. There should never be a problem in speaking against consensus, for that is the only way that consensus can change. Blindly following consensus is, in my view, not the best way to discuss issues in Wikipedia. So I tend to ask a lot of questions. For example: Presuming that the deletion of 4,000 other portals was a good move (and I'm not saying it wasn't) what kind of impact should that have on the discussion on the future of this portal? It seems the arguments are all related to the editor who created it or the content within it instead of the actual topic of the portal. Wikipedia is a joint effort. Content issues can be fixed. What's left? What's the reason that deletion is better than editing?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll happily grant to everyone the concept that sometimes a portal/article/whatever can be so bad that no amount of editing can save it IF those supporting deleting this portal will show why that applies to this particular portal and what precisely is so bad about it and how it meets that threshhold.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that deletion is better than editing is simple: deletion means that readers stop wasting time on it now.

Why that's so bad is set out in detail at the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two. So far you show no sign of having read those, and it's not a good look for you to demand a custom explanation when you appear not to have read the generic one. If you want to challenge a strong, recently-built current existing consensus, you have an obligation to study it yourself rather than waltz in and demand that people give a private 101 class in it.

Retention means that we lure readers into wasting their time indefinitely, based on an unevidenced hope that someone will a devote tine to building a decent portal in its place, b) do a good job of it, and c) that it will be maintained.

The ease of re-creation means that deletion is basically a cost-free option, whereas retention has significant costs.

This is similar to my creation of Category:1978 in sports in Montana to fill a redlink. Built in a second from ((SportsYearCatUSstate)), so if it's not needed, just kill it and don't waste my time of yours time even telling me. It can be re-created just as fast if its needed again.

Much the same with this automated page. Easy-come, easy-go. Don't confuse it with a page which has actually had any care and thought pout into it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any policy or guideline that establishes a threshold on the amount of work required before a portal/article/file/whatever can be kept or deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I am unaware of any policy or guideline which discourages editors from using a bit of commonsense. Your reply is pure wikilawyering, and entirely ignores the benefits to readers and editors, as well as continuing to ignore the broad consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "lawyering", it's just a failure on my part to understand. I'm sorry if my lack of understanding has tested your patience.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to the creation of a manual version in future. I don't have a problem with the scope, I think portals on areas of scholarship are usually fine and thsi is a broad one. However there is a consensus at better attended discussions that automated portals which just reproduce parts of the content of the main article (or a navbox found in it) are not helpful because they don't add content beyond what is found in the main article. Hut 8.5 21:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-09-10 15:23:12 by User:Pbsouthwood. This useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality deserves deletion. User:Paulmcdonald want to check if, two weeks later, these rationales continue flying. Readers don't want to check, it seems: [wmflabs]. Portal:Oceanography. Pldx1 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 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.