Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Company Portals

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) 22:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Company Portals

Single company or organization portals (or their products) generally built completely off the automated error template. Insufficent scope and unlikely to attract editor interest per WP:POG. Portal:Companies and industry specific portals cover these businesses. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-11-17T18:14:44Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC) corrected by request. Pldx1 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The above seems to be an automated vote in error. At least, I find it unlikely that all of the portals were created at 1814 GMT on 17 November 2018. We know that it takes a fraction of a minute to create a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a stray vote as the bundle was being put together. This is tedious work checking thousands of pages to find ones that can be handled together logically to save holding even more MFDs. I'll invite User:Pldx1 to revote once this bundle is done. I'm up to M now. Legacypac (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all through Portal:Mattel except for Portal:Alphabet Inc., which does not appear to have been created using the "automated error template", even if it was later recast on that template. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not !voting on Portal:Alphabet Inc.. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet is the odd one out. The origional page was created and abandoned in 2015. It was moved to this title [1] in 2018 and after a lot of mucking around it was "upgraded" (a term I use loosely) to a single page design [2]. There is nothing left of the old line portal work and not even the page name remains. They turned that into a DAB at Portal:Alphabet. It's just like the other single page creations except they appropriated a page someone else started and abandoned. Would have been less work for the same effect to make Portal:Alphabet Inc. from scratch and turn the original one into the DAB instead of making it into a redirect and then DABing it. Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon Portal:Alphabet Inc. should never have been created because Portal:Google already existed. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On point for this discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:British Airways closed as deleted after a well attended MFD. Legacypac (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as useless. CoolSkittle (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2015-08-12T01:15:24Z by User:StudiesWorld: Portal:Alphabet Inc.. Pldx1 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

- An automated portal, created 2018-11-17T18:14:44Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Advanced Micro Devices

- An automated portal, created 2018-12-07T05:02:16Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Amazon

- An automated portal, created 2018-12-07T05:07:55Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Amazon (company)

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-08T23:31:46Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Adobe Inc.

- An automated portal, created 2018-08-18T08:20:31Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Adobe Flash

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-05T09:12:41Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:AFL-CIO

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-09T06:03:55Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Audi

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-05T12:36:56Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:AT&T

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-09T06:24:55Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:BlackBerry

- An automated portal, created 2018-10-23T05:23:37Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Berkshire Hathaway

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-09T07:08:12Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Children in Need

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-08T01:07:13Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:CERN

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-07T06:21:01Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:CNN

- An automated portal, created 2018-10-23T12:00:00Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Land Rover

- An automated portal, created 2018-11-29T02:38:14Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Disney Princess

- An automated portal, created 2018-12-31T00:01:35Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Fox Corporation

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-07T10:33:22Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Lamborghini

- An automated portal, created 2018-08-26T01:38:33Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Lockheed Martin

- An automated portal, created 2018-11-29T18:58:05Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Mattel

Pldx1 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Portal:BlackBerry. I put in work to clean up the automated template and fix issues. Is there a problem with it that I didn't catch? --JECE (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is, and I expect we will write it into WP:POG soon based on closed MfDs, is that individual companies and product brandlines are not a broad topic suitable for a portal. If we allow any we open the floodgates to a lot of referenceless commercial content that lacks the balance we create in actual articles. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general terms, you may be right. However, Portal:BlackBerry isn't just about the company. The introduction is taken from a different Wikipedia article, BlackBerry. In fact, the portal wasn't about the company at all until I took the initiative to broaden the topic. If you think that Portal:BlackBerry has "referenceless commercial content that lacks the balance we create in actual articles", please explain, because I don't see it. Also, if that's the real reason behind these deletion requests, you may need to rethink why you included other broad portals like the AFL-CIO one which have no commercial content.. --JECE (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The general idea is individual companies, brands, product lines, bands, most all people, organizations and similar are better handled in articles. I see little difference between AFL-CIO and Mattel as both are about individual organizations not broad concepts to explore. Note the nom statement calls out "products" which Blackberry is. Legacypac (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it. Portal:BlackBerry is almost identical to Portal:Android (operating system) and Portal:Apple Inc., neither of which are nominated for deletion. Could you please explain why this specific portal is a problem? There are no redlinks. Content is organized well. It's a broad topic about a company, several operating sytems, many hardware lines and also software products. Or am I missing something? --JECE (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is not comprehensive. I did not get a chance to finish it before the discussion started. There are a lot of pages at All portals to sort through, so I ended up with a representitive sample that can be used as precent on a future nomination. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you're trying to mass-delete a bunch of pages. However, I'm specifically objecting to deleting Portal:BlackBerry. I don't know how you expect to set a precedent if you only speak in general terms and refuse to address specific pages.--JECE (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:JECE. At the top of the Portal:BlackBerry page, there is a {{Portal maintenance status}}. You should document it. Pldx1 (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, Pldx1! I edited the template. Were you suggesting that I do something more? Also, I noticed that User:UnitedStatesian just made some useful edits and fixes. User:UnitedStatesian, can I add you as a second maintainer? --JECE (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no: once the current cleanup is done, I hope to leave the Portal: namespace far behind. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the ping! I think that Alphabet would ideally be kept if it could be well maintained, but I am not in a place to maintain it at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudiesWorld (talk • contribs)

Portal:Alphabet Inc. should never have been created because Portal:Google already existed. 04:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Cross reference the next batch at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Company Portal Batch 2 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed:
- Keep Portal:Advanced Micro Devices, Portal:Amazon (the redirect should not be listed here - it's a G8 deletion if the portal is deleted and needs to go to RfD if you want it deleted independently of the portal), Portal:AFL-CIO, Portal:Audi, Portal:AT&T, Portal:Adobe Inc., Portal:Berkshire Hathaway, Portal:CNN, Portal:Lamborghini and Portal:Lockheed Martin as these are all large organisations that have sufficient content to support a useful portal.
- Keep Portal:BlackBerry per JECE and as above.
- Weak delete Portal:Fox Corporation, Portal:Audi, Portal:CERN, Portal:Land Rover and Portal:Mattel - these should be large enough to support portals but the current portals don't demonstrate this.
- Merge the scope of Portal:Alphabet Inc., Portal:Adobe Flash and Portal:Disney Princess into Portal:Google, Portal:Adobe Inc. and Portal:Disney respectively then redirect.
- Delete the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These pseudo-portals are simply automated spam. Each one merely repackages a single existing navbox into a bloated, processor-intensive alternative view which adds nothing to the navbox. The navbox has the advantage that it is transcluded on each each page in the set, whereas the portal requires navigation to a separate page. In every case the head article is a significantly better navigational hub than the portal, because it includes all the the navbox and many other links.

Note that by "Delete all", I mean all, including Portal:BlackBerry, which has been moved to Portal:BlackBerry Limited. It is still an automated portal based solely on Template:BlackBerry, and all that JECE has done is that 8 days ago they added their name[3] as "maintainer".

Thryduulf's comments above miss the point. There may be a case for creating portals on some or all of these topics, but even if there was consensus for single-company portals (which seems doubtful judging by recent MFDs), these drive-by spam pages are not worth keeping. If somebody want to create a genuine, curated portal which is more than an inflated navbox, they can recreate any of these pages in seconds simply by entering {{subst:Basic portal start page}} and pressing save. There is no need to keep the spam just in case someone decides to actually take on the task of curation and active maintenance, or in case JECE does more than sticking their name on a page.

We have already deleted many hundreds of similar automated spam portals, including 1,390 in one go at the exceptionally high-turnout debate at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox. Nobody in this discussion has identified any way in which this set of spam deserves different treatment ... except for Portal:Alphabet Inc., which has already been struck from the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, User:BrownHairedGirl, but your post here is unacceptable. You should do your research before calling out a fellow user. Or, for that matter, before deleting hundreds of pages. I only added my name as a maintainer because a user above asked me to fill out that template. As I also mention above, I put in work to clean up the automated template back in October. You could have also read above that UnitedStatesian made more improvements earlier this month. If that wasn't enough, you could also see those edits clearly on the history page where presumably you noticed my edit from a few days ago. And I've also long worked hard behind the scenes improving the messes I found at Template:BlackBerry, commons:Category:BlackBerry Limited, Category:BlackBerry Limited and subcategories, among other places. That has been far tougher than fixing issues with an automated portal, I might add. All that work also just so happens to have made the BlackBerry portal useful. So please, take a second to look before hurling accusations. Your zealously is blinding you. Oh, and I use male pronouns, which you also would have known had you checked my profile page.--JECE (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JECE, I have re-checked my post, and I haven't found any inaccuracies or significant omissions in it. If you improved the navbox, then well done, but that doesn't alter the fact that this pseudoportal remains a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of that navbox. The edits[4] by UnitedStatesian are of course helpful, but they are merely the housekeeping of disambiguation, not substantive improvements

I'm sorry that my use of the singular they caused offence. None was intended, and its a common gender-neutral usage on en.wp. And I'm sure that your 611 total edits in 18 months were all helpful, but that's not exactly a long-service medal qualifier.

Making personal attacks make be how you want to conduct a discussion, but that doesn't alter the fact that I did my research here. This remains an automated portal which fails the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". Like most other automated portals, this one remains a significantly degraded version of the head article BlackBerry Limited, with much less utility as a navigational hub. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think that I'm the one making personal attacks, you need to check yourself.^[1] And if you really think that I was offended by your use of the singular they rather than the rest of your post, then you should reread my reply.^[2] And yes, UnitedStatesian and I only had to do minor housekeeping because, frankly, the automated portal was a useful template. I'm dumfounded that you find that to be a valid reason for deleting the portal. And it's actually 1,411 edits since I started editing Wikimedia projects again 16 months ago. That's 260% more active than you suggest, not that it matters at all to this debate. You were just trying to malign my character again while ignoring the specific edits I had done on Template:BlackBerry, commons:Category:BlackBerry Limited and Category:BlackBerry Limited that make the BlackBerry portal actually work.--JECE (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JECE is clearly angry, and there is little point trying to engage in constructive debate with someone in a rage, or to respond to hot air.

So I will simply restate the two core issues of fact:

This portal remains a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Template:BlackBerry
all that JECE has done to the portal page is that they added their name[5] as "maintainer". Why it was added is irrelevant; the point is that the naming of a "maintainer" does not alter the fact that portal remains as WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Template:BlackBerry
Any of these pages can be recreated in seconds simply by entering {{subst:Basic portal start page}} and pressing save

So there is nothing to keep. If JECE continues to believe that noting these facts is a "personal attack", they will not have happy life ... but's their choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the personal attacks, really? As a veteran user, you should know better, yet you're now three for three. I urge you to stick to discussing ideas and issues.

1. As I've already mentioned twice, and you keep ignoring, the portal also draws on the BlackBerry category trees of the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.[6][7]

2. (a) As I've also already mentioned a few times, and you keep ignoring, I worked on improving the portal page back in October.[8] I also worked back in August and September to bring order to Template:BlackBerry [9], which, as you have pointed out, helps keep this portal maintained. I also still maintain those two category trees ([10][11]), which took me ages to clean up in the first place.

2. (b) Nobody claimed that labeling myself as a maintainer of the portal affected anything. That was your invention, designed to (1) suggest that I was using an underhanded strategy to save the portal from deletion and (2) divert attention away from the real work that I had actually done to improve the portal. In this context, the 'why' does matter.

3. I don't understand what you mean by this. The instructions for that template say: "Please do not replace old portals with this template." You want users to start from scratch when there is already a functioning portal?

--JECE (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Read again for "inaccuracies or significant omissions": "all that JECE has done is that 8 days ago they added [his] name as 'maintainer'. . . . JECE does more than sticking [his] name on a page."
^ You didn't even acknowledge my main protest: "I only added my name as a maintainer because a user above asked me to fill out that template."

The only personal attacks here have been by you, starting with your statement that Your zealously is blinding you.

No, the portal does not draw on the BlackBerry category trees of the English Wikipedia. It merely displays that category tree. Its article list is drawn solely from Template:BlackBerry, and as repeatedly noted there is an extraordinarily wide and deep consensus that portals whose selected articles list is drawn from a single navbox are a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of that navbox and should be deleted.

I am glad that you agree that adding your name as maintainer is no reason to keep the portal. The rest remains hot air, because this pseudo-portal is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Template:BlackBerry. No amount of improvements to that navbox or to Commons alters that redundancy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Though, I just want to say for the record that Portal:AFL-CIO, Portal:Children in Need, and Portal:CERN are not commercial enterprises. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:22, 18 April 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.

[1] Read again for "inaccuracies or significant omissions": "all that JECE has done is that 8 days ago they added [his] name as 'maintainer'. . . . JECE does more than sticking [his] name on a page."

[2] You didn't even acknowledge my main protest: "I only added my name as a maintainer because a user above asked me to fill out that template."

[1]

[2]