Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dhallywood

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 with no prejudice towards re-creation if someone actually wants to create and maintain a functioning portal. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Dhallywood

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned unfinished in Aug 2017. Three portal project members have done "maintenance" since but not resolved obvious issues like the blank Recognized Content section (headings only), the redlinked Topics template, the various redlinks in the Things you can do section, or the lack of featured articles or other elements that are static and can't be changed by the viewer. Portals need maintenance and the portals project is not maintaining even portals like this that could be a broad enough topic. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What if I finished this portal within a few days? Thanks in advance for consideration. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 06:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep broad enough topic to pass WP:POG, issues are easily resolved. SportingFlyer T·C 08:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:POG per available content, such as that denoted in the category tree below. Also, the portal creator has asked for some time herein to potentially update the portal.

(Select [►] to view subcategories)

Dhallywood

Cinema of East Pakistan

Cinema of Bangladesh

Cinemas in Dhaka

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination does not allege lack of scope. Legacypac (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Moheen Reeyad seems to volunteer for the maintenance of this portal. A more formal statement would help me to make an opinion. Pldx1 (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice he created it and has not finished it yet years later. He came to the conversation because he got a deletion discussion notice. Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No-one is going to this portal. 14 pageviews per day average, which would be even fewer before the MfD. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep at this time. If the portal isn't improved within three months, it can come back to MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. Portal:Film can be a completely effective way to navigate to all this content. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Film would lump this in with everything else film-related worldwide, when there's clearly enough Bangladeshi films/actors to create a specific portal on. That would do a disservice to our readers. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which readers? Does anyone visit this portal? UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, the disservice to our readers consist of advertising them a "portal" which is isn't a portal. With no alternates for each selection, this page is just an elaborate way of displaying three links: Cinema of Bangladesh, Jaya Ahsan , Mukh O Mukhosh.

Actually, disservice is too mind. This is more like playing a practical joke on them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could just let people read Cinema of Bangladesh which has many editors watching and maintaining it and serves 10,000+ readers a month. Seems more sensible. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a portal, but a fake. ONE article, ONE biography, both from 2017. Very far from a navigation tool. While user:Moheen Reeyad seems to volunteer for the maintenance of this portal was only that: seeming. And now, 21 days later, we have the answer to: What if I finished this portal within a few days?. The right question was rather: what if not ? And the answer is: delete (with no prejudice to a maintainer for real, Who Would Land From The Stars). Pldx1 (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreating an actively curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time.

Regardless of anyone's views on whether this is a suitable topic for a portal, what we have here is simply an abandoned draft. It's not a portal, because with only one article and one biography, it's nothing more than flier for a thin single issue of magazine which only ever had one issue. This page as it stands is simply a waste of readers' time, a page of pointlessness to which they are lured on a false promise of content.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POG failure. A maintainer commented asking "what if I finished it" and then hasn't finished it. No prejudice against curated recreation. SITH (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – and improve. This is a valid topic that can always be expanded and the issues can be addressed.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dear User:Vinegarymass911 are you saying "I will improve", "I will expand" and "I will address", or are you saying: "hey you peones, do improve, do expand, do address, instead of criticizing this empty portal for being empty" ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient scope. Content issues should be addressed via editing or discussing on the relevant talk pages per WP:DEL-CONTENT. Waggers TALK 15:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One month after the launching of this MfD, this fake portal continues to contain no more than ONE snippet about an article and ONE snippet about a biography, both from 2017. Great place to emit the comment content issues should be addressed via editing, as a method to suggest that "lack of links to any content should be addressed by waiting, and praying, and waiting, and...". There is no deadline to stop mocking our readers by pretending there could be some slideshow here, is there ? Pldx1 (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is sufficient content available for this topic to support a portal, and there are no apparent problems that cannot be resolved through normal editing. It's not perfect, but not being perfect is not a reason for deletion and the issues are not significant enogh to require TNT. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That description of not perfect is an extreme euphemism for an abandoned collection of old WP:REDUNDANTFORK. It needs to be completely rebuilt from a blank sheet", because a set of 12-year-old content forks is no base from which to start building a portal which might actually add value for readers.

In the meantime, it is disruptive to continue to waste the time of readers by luring them to a page which has been abandoned for ages.

The notion which Thryduulf suggests that these failings can be be resolved through normal editing is implausible to the point of fantasy, because:

There is no tag to identify long-term abandoned portals, and no category to track them, because the WP:WPPORT has never throughout its history engaged in any systematic quality-monitoring of portals
Category:All portals currently contains 1,315 portals, of which 1,063 are in Category:Unassessed Portal pages. That's about 80% of portals to which to no assessment rating has ever been assigned. The portals project has simply never done basic monitoring of quality, let alone tracking of specific problems, which is why hundreds of abandoned portals have rotted for up to 13 years
Building a decent portal which would actually add value to readers takes time and research, and knowledge of the topic. Thryduulf has not identified any editor with the skills and commitment to build and maintain a portal on this topic.

The notion that normal editing will fix the problems simply denies the reality of long-term neglect. In portalspace, normal editing has left most portals to rot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations at WP:Portal/Guidelines says for the Selected article, Selected biography or other Selected content items, find a good number (i.e. a bare minimum of 20 non-list, in topic articles) of articles, as many as you can, that could be showcased on the portal. On the other hand, we have one month after the launching of this MfD, this fake portal continues to contain no more than ONE snippet about an article and ONE snippet about a biography, both from 2017. This could be solved by admitting that ${\displaystyle 2\ll 20}$ . But User:Thryduulf doesn't admit this assertion. If we try to assume some conspiracy theory, this leads easily to "Thryduulf is involved in some sneaky campaign to impose the deletion of the whole portal space". But this would not save the day: a conspiracy theory should explain everything, and we would be left with: "why will Thryduulf be involved in a sneaky campaign against the whole portal space"? It only remains to deal with AGF + ${\displaystyle {\rm {not}}\left(2\ll 20\right)}$ . Solution, anyone ? Pldx1 (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: your comment makes absolutely no sense at all. I support the deletion of some portals, I oppose the deletion of others, I have no strong opinions about the rest. I'm not alleging anybody is part of a conspiracy (if I'm part of one then nobody has done me the courtesy of telling me). The rest of your comment might as well be in a foreign language for all the sense it makes. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 12 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.