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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Portal:Discrimination

Portal:Discrimination ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe this portal is abandoned and also that portals are not the appropriate place for non-unanimous topics. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 17:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Inactive, and seems like it could be a magnet for problems (what counts as in its scope?). - Indy beetle ( talk) 20:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  @ Indy beetle: I imagine articles within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination would be within its scope. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 23:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator. An abandoned POV-magnet, and redundant to the excellent navbox Template:Discrimination.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. :Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:International volleyball, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link
2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Discrimination, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

That sets a very high bar for any portal to satisfy the principle of WP:PORTAL that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". And this abandoned portal is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Discrimination. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ BrownHairedGirl: Very interesting analysis. Would you like to include it HERE? Guilherme Burn ( talk) 14:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the suggestion, @ Guilherme Burn. It's a point which I have been making repeatedly at MFD for over a month, and if you follow recent MFDs you can see that it's a boilerplate text which I adapt for the occasion. I think it would fit well in that essay, but the essay is in @ DexDor's own userspace, so it wouldn't be right for me to edit that page without permission. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, User:Guilherme Burn, I agree with User:BrownHairedGirl on the matter of the essay. If User:DexDor were to move the essay into project space, a better case would be made that other editors could expand it. I might consider copying some of my portal essays in. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Robert McClenon and BrownHairedGirl: He has authorized to use his userspace HERE, but the ideal would be to focus on Wikipedia:The Problems with Portals. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 13:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

User:Guilherme Burn, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:DexDor - Does anyone want to expand The Problems with Portals? It is in project space and has a talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete: unmaintained, potential for POV selection, superseded by navbox. SITH (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The pageviews tell a different story than usual. The portal has an average of 52 daily pageviews, which is more than most, but it means that the readers are reading non-current stuff. I concur with the concerns expressed about POV magnetism. The title of the portal and head article, and thus the scope, are ambiguous. The modern usage of the word primarily refers to what is legally referred to as invidious discrimination, because 'to discriminate' means simply to make a distinction, and, depending on what the distinction is, that may be a necessary use of the human brain, or a misuse of the human brain. A potentially troublesome portal that doesn't have a maintainer should be deleted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As other editors have stated, it's a POV magnet; and serves no reliable function. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment - This portal appears to have had a strange history in 2007, but that was simply page move vandalism, and the vandal was soon indeffed. So the discussion should be on the merits of the portal or lack thereof. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 24 subpages, created 2007-09-21 03:32:00 by User:KeithTyler. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Discrimination. Pldx1 ( talk) 13:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I disagree, obviously.

To the point that the definition of the topic area is poorly defined, I find that disingenuous. The topic is clearly defined in places such as, well, the page itself, as well as Template:Discrimination, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discrimination, Template:Discrimination sidebar and of course, Discrimination.

As to the age of the page or it's lack of activity, I'm not aware that age of a page is a criteria for deletion.

I don't agree that a Portal is dependent on timeliness or currency. WP:PORTAL defines a Portal as "'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" -- that "broad subject" criteria flies in the face of concerns that the topic here is broad; a Portal topic is supposed to be broad. It also says "Portals are meant primarily for readers, while encouraging them to become editors of Wikipedia by providing links to project space." Nothing about the definition of Wikipedia Portals demands currency.

There is concern that it is a target for vandalism. I find that to be a poor, in fact rather odious, argument for deletion. Wikipedia should not shy away from presenting topics (or Portals of topics) because the topics are divisive or unpopular. That metric to me is very much against the spirit of this or any other encyclopedia. Subjectivity has no place here, neither in content, nor in administration. Further, in the time that the Portal has been in existence, there has not nearly been as much vandalism of it as such hand-wringing would imply.

As to the question of it being open to POV, this is likely based on a fallacy that often accompanies this topic. In the period of time I spent the most effort on the portal, I had to make this argument ad nauseam: "discrimination" is an objective concept, and whether or not something is discrimination is not a value judgement, but the result of the application of an objective definition. (There is some confusion about the discussion about "is something racism"; whether or not a practice is "racism" is not the same argument as to whether it is discrimination.) You do not have to approve or disapprove of the right/wrong status of a form of discrimination in order for it to satisfy the definition of discrimination.

I think that to delete the portal -- rather than something more in the spirit of the encyclopedia, such as WP:SOFIXIT -- would be a disservice not just to the topic itself but to those who would be interested in exploring it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Pretending that Portal:discrimination is discriminated is only the usual play of a trump card. This MfD is not about the topic itself, but is simply about the fact that Portal:discrimination is not a navigation tool into a large topic. This fake portal is only an abandoned draft. Like Portal:Volume or Portal:East Midlands England were fake portals, only luring readers. There is a reason why readers don't click on the portal links: readers have experimented there is rarely something worth a click there. This one has to go. Pldx1 ( talk) 07:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment - It is the quoting of SOFIXIT that I find disingenuous. User:KeithTyler hasn't fixed the portal and appears to be saying that we should maintain it rather than delete it. The portal guidelines say not to create a portal and expect others to maintain it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 30 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.