The result of the discussion was: delete. This was a long and winding discussion over a very long period of time (why wasn't this closed earlier?). There was no clear numeric consensus in the votes. However, it seemed to me that there are a few arguments for deletion that weren't adequately refuted. Most convincing was the argument that portals should not be redundant to other portals per WP:POG, and it seems that this portal is necessarily redundant to the portals for North Korea and South Korea. Additionally, this portal was clearly not maintained at all for years at a time, which is obviously problematic (but may not always be a sufficient reason to delete a portal, in the absence of other reasons). ‑Scottywong | talk _ 07:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Sandwiched between Portal:Asia and Portal:South Korea and Portal:North Korea this portal lacks scope real estate to occupy. It's kind of like the DMZ. I propose this be deleted and then recreated as a two page DAB to the two country portals. If the Koreas ever get back together we can revisit this. Legacypac ( talk) 19:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Categories
|
---|
|
High quality content
|
---|
stop messing how sections are numbered |
scheduled to open partially in 2013.shows how obsolete are those snippets. Aren't there any noteworthy topics/events that occurred post 2009 ?
the portal must be maintained and serve a useful purposeat WP:POG#In_general and
Some portals update the selected articles and pictures once a month. Others update them weekly, which is preferredat WP:POG#How_often_to_update?. This is not the case here. The already existing navboxes are providing navigation tools of a largely better quality.
The way Korea topics are organized is that there is only one WikiProjectthere is a right part: only one (shared history, etc.). Everything else is misleading. Top and foremost this is, which tends to suggest that the WikiProject Korea is alive, while organized tries to mask the cruel reality: only living bodies are organized for real. Using the so called Great Articles as basis is one of the reasons of the resulting disaster.
scheduled to open partially in July or August 2013as ever (see Portal:Korea/Selected article/9), and Ban Ki-moon is
the current Secretary-General of the United Nationsas he ever was (see Portal:Korea/Selected biography/1). Even during this deletion process, the keep !voters cannot be arsed to cure their pet portal from signaled failures. Therefore, the only long-term and reasonable cure is to delete this mess. Without prejudice to a restart from scratch, by people decided to provide a decent portal and to spend the required time. Pldx1 ( talk) 13:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
the content looks reasonable. Have you checked Portal:Korea/Selected article/9 that, even now, asserts:
the Ryugyong Hotel is scheduled to open partially in July or August 2013? Have you checked all this shameful set of expired snippets? The WP:WikiProject Korea is as dead as any other deceased WikiProject, and nobody has any intent to maintain the corresponding deceased portal. By the way, Choe Bu (1454–1504), is the only biography here related to
the before 1948 area. Doesn't this seem strange? A portal is supposed to be a navigation tool, i.e. is supposed to be designed according to "there is plenty of scope here", and not only pay a lip service to
there is plenty of scope there. Stop mocking the readers with this fake portal ! Pldx1 ( talk) 08:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
rather substantialfor a portal appears as a sneaky comment against the whole Portal space. (2) This marvelous score is only the result of the present MfD, see [ wmflabs]. Pldx1 ( talk) 10:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The following spreadsheet shows the average daily pageviews for selected past and present countries, for the period of 1 January 2019 through 28 February 2019. Each of the entries either is a country or has been a country. This is not a complete list of countries. If your country isn't listed, then its portal hasn't been nominated, and I haven't provided it for comparison.
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Ratio | Notes | Percent |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Germany | 104 | 15,549 | 149.5 | 0.67% | |
Kosovo | 10 | 6,104 | 610.4 | 0.16% | |
Nigeria | 53 | 8,707 | 164.3 | 0.61% | |
Azerbaijan | 14 | 5,839 | 417.1 | 0.24% | |
Korea | 35 | 3,135 | 89.6 | Article views include Korean Peninsula. | 1.12% |
North Korea | 51 | 6,870 | 134.7 | 0.74% | |
South Korea | 23 | 7,824 | 340.2 | 0.29% | |
United States | 235 | 42,004 | 178.7 | 0.56% | |
Ireland | 38 | 8,813 | 231.9 | Does not include 5867 views of Republic of Ireland. | 0.43% |
Seljuk Empire | 2 | 1,366 | 683.0 | Article views are for two related articles. | 0.15% |
Umayyad Caliphate | 2 | 1,983 | 991.5 | 0.10% | |
Austria-Hungary | 10 | 3,724 | 372.4 | Already deleted. | 0.27% |
Mughal Empire | 9 | 5,814 | 646.0 | 0.15% | |
Canada | 64 | 18,158 | 283.7 | 0.35% | |
United Kingdom | 133 | 31,041 | 233.4 | Originator inactive since 2009. | 0.43% |
Australia | 77 | 17,864 | 232.0 | 0.43% |
As can be seen, no country portal ever is viewed as often as 1.5% of the frequency of viewing the article. It is commonly stated by portal advocates and others that a country is a "broad subject area" and warrants a portal. Philosophers make a distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, between knowledge that is available in advance and knowledge that must be based on observation. It is possible to decide a priori that particular types of subject areas, such as countries, are broad subject areas. However, that is an incomplete quotation of the portal guidelines, and, because of its incompleteness, is misleading. The portal guidelines say that "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." It is not possible to decide a priori that a subject area will attract readers and portal maintainers. That must be observed, and assessed a posteriori. What has been seen a posteriori is that a portal often does not get even 0.3% as many views as the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
add your keep/delete/comments below this line
Since it has already been decided to Keep the two portals on the two nations of modern Korea, the combined portal should be deleted, or disambiguated as recommended by User:Legacypac. An even better idea would be that of User:LightandDark2000 to merge Portal:South Korea and Portal:North Korea into Portal:Korea. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. This was a long and winding discussion over a very long period of time (why wasn't this closed earlier?). There was no clear numeric consensus in the votes. However, it seemed to me that there are a few arguments for deletion that weren't adequately refuted. Most convincing was the argument that portals should not be redundant to other portals per WP:POG, and it seems that this portal is necessarily redundant to the portals for North Korea and South Korea. Additionally, this portal was clearly not maintained at all for years at a time, which is obviously problematic (but may not always be a sufficient reason to delete a portal, in the absence of other reasons). ‑Scottywong | talk _ 07:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Sandwiched between Portal:Asia and Portal:South Korea and Portal:North Korea this portal lacks scope real estate to occupy. It's kind of like the DMZ. I propose this be deleted and then recreated as a two page DAB to the two country portals. If the Koreas ever get back together we can revisit this. Legacypac ( talk) 19:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Categories
|
---|
|
High quality content
|
---|
stop messing how sections are numbered |
scheduled to open partially in 2013.shows how obsolete are those snippets. Aren't there any noteworthy topics/events that occurred post 2009 ?
the portal must be maintained and serve a useful purposeat WP:POG#In_general and
Some portals update the selected articles and pictures once a month. Others update them weekly, which is preferredat WP:POG#How_often_to_update?. This is not the case here. The already existing navboxes are providing navigation tools of a largely better quality.
The way Korea topics are organized is that there is only one WikiProjectthere is a right part: only one (shared history, etc.). Everything else is misleading. Top and foremost this is, which tends to suggest that the WikiProject Korea is alive, while organized tries to mask the cruel reality: only living bodies are organized for real. Using the so called Great Articles as basis is one of the reasons of the resulting disaster.
scheduled to open partially in July or August 2013as ever (see Portal:Korea/Selected article/9), and Ban Ki-moon is
the current Secretary-General of the United Nationsas he ever was (see Portal:Korea/Selected biography/1). Even during this deletion process, the keep !voters cannot be arsed to cure their pet portal from signaled failures. Therefore, the only long-term and reasonable cure is to delete this mess. Without prejudice to a restart from scratch, by people decided to provide a decent portal and to spend the required time. Pldx1 ( talk) 13:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
the content looks reasonable. Have you checked Portal:Korea/Selected article/9 that, even now, asserts:
the Ryugyong Hotel is scheduled to open partially in July or August 2013? Have you checked all this shameful set of expired snippets? The WP:WikiProject Korea is as dead as any other deceased WikiProject, and nobody has any intent to maintain the corresponding deceased portal. By the way, Choe Bu (1454–1504), is the only biography here related to
the before 1948 area. Doesn't this seem strange? A portal is supposed to be a navigation tool, i.e. is supposed to be designed according to "there is plenty of scope here", and not only pay a lip service to
there is plenty of scope there. Stop mocking the readers with this fake portal ! Pldx1 ( talk) 08:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
rather substantialfor a portal appears as a sneaky comment against the whole Portal space. (2) This marvelous score is only the result of the present MfD, see [ wmflabs]. Pldx1 ( talk) 10:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The following spreadsheet shows the average daily pageviews for selected past and present countries, for the period of 1 January 2019 through 28 February 2019. Each of the entries either is a country or has been a country. This is not a complete list of countries. If your country isn't listed, then its portal hasn't been nominated, and I haven't provided it for comparison.
Title | Portal Page Views | Article Page Views | Ratio | Notes | Percent |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Germany | 104 | 15,549 | 149.5 | 0.67% | |
Kosovo | 10 | 6,104 | 610.4 | 0.16% | |
Nigeria | 53 | 8,707 | 164.3 | 0.61% | |
Azerbaijan | 14 | 5,839 | 417.1 | 0.24% | |
Korea | 35 | 3,135 | 89.6 | Article views include Korean Peninsula. | 1.12% |
North Korea | 51 | 6,870 | 134.7 | 0.74% | |
South Korea | 23 | 7,824 | 340.2 | 0.29% | |
United States | 235 | 42,004 | 178.7 | 0.56% | |
Ireland | 38 | 8,813 | 231.9 | Does not include 5867 views of Republic of Ireland. | 0.43% |
Seljuk Empire | 2 | 1,366 | 683.0 | Article views are for two related articles. | 0.15% |
Umayyad Caliphate | 2 | 1,983 | 991.5 | 0.10% | |
Austria-Hungary | 10 | 3,724 | 372.4 | Already deleted. | 0.27% |
Mughal Empire | 9 | 5,814 | 646.0 | 0.15% | |
Canada | 64 | 18,158 | 283.7 | 0.35% | |
United Kingdom | 133 | 31,041 | 233.4 | Originator inactive since 2009. | 0.43% |
Australia | 77 | 17,864 | 232.0 | 0.43% |
As can be seen, no country portal ever is viewed as often as 1.5% of the frequency of viewing the article. It is commonly stated by portal advocates and others that a country is a "broad subject area" and warrants a portal. Philosophers make a distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, between knowledge that is available in advance and knowledge that must be based on observation. It is possible to decide a priori that particular types of subject areas, such as countries, are broad subject areas. However, that is an incomplete quotation of the portal guidelines, and, because of its incompleteness, is misleading. The portal guidelines say that "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." It is not possible to decide a priori that a subject area will attract readers and portal maintainers. That must be observed, and assessed a posteriori. What has been seen a posteriori is that a portal often does not get even 0.3% as many views as the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
add your keep/delete/comments below this line
Since it has already been decided to Keep the two portals on the two nations of modern Korea, the combined portal should be deleted, or disambiguated as recommended by User:Legacypac. An even better idea would be that of User:LightandDark2000 to merge Portal:South Korea and Portal:North Korea into Portal:Korea. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)