- 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 this version
- The legitimacy of having a Portal:Nazi Germany is pretty clear, no one has tried to dispute it, and I can't imagine many people doing so. This Portal:Nazi Germany is universally loathed, and I can't imagine that changing. The uncertainty of how and when this page is going to be deleted is preventing anyone from creating a legitimate version, even though there is no question that this version is going to get deleted eventually. So I'm closing this now.
- A neutral editor is welcome to recreate a legitimate version without having to go through DRV. Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Portal:Nazi Germany
This portal is using Nazi symbolism, quotes, etc. as ends in themselves, it is also completely biased because it omits almost anything about the horrors the nazi regime did and presents the rest in a whitewashed way, too. rtc ( talk) 02:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Very likely Delete, but I'd like more information on the background here. This looks like it might be one issue of several relating to Neogeolegend ( talk · contribs)? Also, what's going on with Portals these days? Didn't TPH want to delete them all as mostly abandoned and derelict? Can any user start a Portal on any subject on their own? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I was indeed working on a discussion regarding the future of portals, but seems that just enough are kept and maintained properly to show that the system works to an extent. The discussion became so long and convoluted that I long since stoped paying attention to it. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Most of the "public media" entries in Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Nazi Germany/Public media contain(ed) non-free images (cover art, etc.) that fail WP:NFCC#9 policy (a few are PD) . Their use is as a gallery or navigational aid, not strictly in the article about the topic they specifically represent. It's not even permitted to embed non-free images on the WP mainpage when highlighting articles there, so it's surely not in portal-space. I have removed the non-free ones from the portal-pages and alerted Neogeolegend specifically to this concern. DMacks ( talk) 05:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Utterly useless and offensive page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree everything above per Rtc ( talk · contribs), SmokeyJoe ( talk · contribs) and TenPoundHammer ( talk · contribs). Portals should not be used for pushing out offensive in that matter. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 11:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The substantive part of this portal (as opposed to the strictly adminstrative part) appears to pro-Nazi. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 11:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. As a military historian, I do find the rush to judgment somewhat disappointing. With that said, I can live with it or without it. It could use editing if kept. It should be noted that it was recently assessed and found that: "This portal page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject." Therefore, it has been found by another neutral party to have some merit. But again, I don't feel strongly about it. I don't plan to manage its upkeep. I am not a big fan of "portals". If they are present one tries to make them better as guides, but in the end I believe cats and links guide the general reader in a better fashion. Kierzek ( talk) 12:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're sending mixed signals. "Rush to judgement" is something people say when they're opposed to the prevailing consensus (which is to delete), but you say you don't care one way or the other. So which is it? You're neutral, or you oppose the consensus to delete? (And whichever way you're going, please don't characterize the decisions of other wikipedians in a pejorative way. You have no way of knowing whether the judgments presented here are well-considered or perfunctory, but
AGF says that you should take them at face value and not denigrate them.)
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also "scope" has nothing whatsoever to do with quality or merit - it's simply about whether a topic is sufficently related or not to be within a project's purview. As an historian, I would think you would understand that.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I can tell you that the term is also used in the law when one believes the process should give greater consideration to something before a final verdict or discussion is ended. As to the "scope", that was my point; it was found "sufficiently related" which does translate into some degree of merit. I am bringing up points of consideration on the matter; and will call them as I see them. In the end, I cast a neutral vote; I thought that was clear by using "cmt". There you have it. Footnote: As it will most likely be deleted, I assume someone will remove all the portal icon/links from article pages. Kierzek ( talk) 12:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also "scope" has nothing whatsoever to do with quality or merit - it's simply about whether a topic is sufficently related or not to be within a project's purview. As an historian, I would think you would understand that.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're sending mixed signals. "Rush to judgement" is something people say when they're opposed to the prevailing consensus (which is to delete), but you say you don't care one way or the other. So which is it? You're neutral, or you oppose the consensus to delete? (And whichever way you're going, please don't characterize the decisions of other wikipedians in a pejorative way. You have no way of knowing whether the judgments presented here are well-considered or perfunctory, but
AGF says that you should take them at face value and not denigrate them.)
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the creator of this portal has now been indefinitely blocked for Nazi advocacy. 28bytes ( talk) 15:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. In light of the recent development of the above and recent find by Viriditas' of this [1], I believe there is enough evidence now to delete the portal and remove the portal icon/links; with or without prejudice. Kierzek ( talk) 15:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Naziism is a subject of public interest and this Portal is a functional way to organize information concerning Naziism that is found on the Encyclopedia. The "Offensive" parts of the Selected Bios and Articles comes directly from the ledes of those articles, themselves, and many of them have been assessed. Omission of information is never an acceptable delete rationale, rather it serves as an invitation to Be Bold and add that information yourself. I can do without the PermaLinks to the Heer, Luftwaffe, and Kriegsmarine (most Portal content revolves) but a topic with so much high-quality information is clearly ripe for a Portal. In fact, assuming a sufficient number of high-quality images can be created, it would not be hard at all to bring this up to Featured Portal status. If this MFD is held as a "Keep", I personally would be willing to improve it with the goal of Featured Portal status. This page needs to be fixed, not deleted. Achowat ( talk) 15:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Now. This one has a huge creep factor. Compare to Portal:Genocide. Has anyone written a non-emotional explanation of wiki values that AGF of the person posting such info? I looked for some sort of essay for the Neogeolegend discussion, but didn't find anything. Neotarf ( talk) 17:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I respectfully disagree with Achowat that deleting this portal would be "omission of information"; rather, it would simply be deleting the repackaging of existing information (i.e. article content) in a way that (in my opinion) glorifies Nazism. The fact that this portal was created by an editor who has vandalized Israeli templates leaves it irreparably tainted, in my view. If we have to have such a portal, it would be much better to delete this attempt and start over fresh without that obvious baggage. 28bytes ( talk) 17:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with 28bytes that the Editor (rather than the edits) matter. If the tone and the iconography and the lack of information concerning Nazi crimes is an issue, I say we simply fix the tone, iconography, and missing information. But I can see the reasoning behind getting that particular editor's contributions off the page (the information about the block and the editor in question was not posted at the time I began my response), even to the point that it might make sense to just do it, rules be damned. Achowat ( talk) 17:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 this version
- The legitimacy of having a Portal:Nazi Germany is pretty clear, no one has tried to dispute it, and I can't imagine many people doing so. This Portal:Nazi Germany is universally loathed, and I can't imagine that changing. The uncertainty of how and when this page is going to be deleted is preventing anyone from creating a legitimate version, even though there is no question that this version is going to get deleted eventually. So I'm closing this now.
- A neutral editor is welcome to recreate a legitimate version without having to go through DRV. Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Portal:Nazi Germany
This portal is using Nazi symbolism, quotes, etc. as ends in themselves, it is also completely biased because it omits almost anything about the horrors the nazi regime did and presents the rest in a whitewashed way, too. rtc ( talk) 02:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Very likely Delete, but I'd like more information on the background here. This looks like it might be one issue of several relating to Neogeolegend ( talk · contribs)? Also, what's going on with Portals these days? Didn't TPH want to delete them all as mostly abandoned and derelict? Can any user start a Portal on any subject on their own? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I was indeed working on a discussion regarding the future of portals, but seems that just enough are kept and maintained properly to show that the system works to an extent. The discussion became so long and convoluted that I long since stoped paying attention to it. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Most of the "public media" entries in Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Nazi Germany/Public media contain(ed) non-free images (cover art, etc.) that fail WP:NFCC#9 policy (a few are PD) . Their use is as a gallery or navigational aid, not strictly in the article about the topic they specifically represent. It's not even permitted to embed non-free images on the WP mainpage when highlighting articles there, so it's surely not in portal-space. I have removed the non-free ones from the portal-pages and alerted Neogeolegend specifically to this concern. DMacks ( talk) 05:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Utterly useless and offensive page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree everything above per Rtc ( talk · contribs), SmokeyJoe ( talk · contribs) and TenPoundHammer ( talk · contribs). Portals should not be used for pushing out offensive in that matter. JJ98 ( Talk / Contributions) 11:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The substantive part of this portal (as opposed to the strictly adminstrative part) appears to pro-Nazi. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 11:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. As a military historian, I do find the rush to judgment somewhat disappointing. With that said, I can live with it or without it. It could use editing if kept. It should be noted that it was recently assessed and found that: "This portal page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject." Therefore, it has been found by another neutral party to have some merit. But again, I don't feel strongly about it. I don't plan to manage its upkeep. I am not a big fan of "portals". If they are present one tries to make them better as guides, but in the end I believe cats and links guide the general reader in a better fashion. Kierzek ( talk) 12:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're sending mixed signals. "Rush to judgement" is something people say when they're opposed to the prevailing consensus (which is to delete), but you say you don't care one way or the other. So which is it? You're neutral, or you oppose the consensus to delete? (And whichever way you're going, please don't characterize the decisions of other wikipedians in a pejorative way. You have no way of knowing whether the judgments presented here are well-considered or perfunctory, but
AGF says that you should take them at face value and not denigrate them.)
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also "scope" has nothing whatsoever to do with quality or merit - it's simply about whether a topic is sufficently related or not to be within a project's purview. As an historian, I would think you would understand that.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I can tell you that the term is also used in the law when one believes the process should give greater consideration to something before a final verdict or discussion is ended. As to the "scope", that was my point; it was found "sufficiently related" which does translate into some degree of merit. I am bringing up points of consideration on the matter; and will call them as I see them. In the end, I cast a neutral vote; I thought that was clear by using "cmt". There you have it. Footnote: As it will most likely be deleted, I assume someone will remove all the portal icon/links from article pages. Kierzek ( talk) 12:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also "scope" has nothing whatsoever to do with quality or merit - it's simply about whether a topic is sufficently related or not to be within a project's purview. As an historian, I would think you would understand that.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're sending mixed signals. "Rush to judgement" is something people say when they're opposed to the prevailing consensus (which is to delete), but you say you don't care one way or the other. So which is it? You're neutral, or you oppose the consensus to delete? (And whichever way you're going, please don't characterize the decisions of other wikipedians in a pejorative way. You have no way of knowing whether the judgments presented here are well-considered or perfunctory, but
AGF says that you should take them at face value and not denigrate them.)
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the creator of this portal has now been indefinitely blocked for Nazi advocacy. 28bytes ( talk) 15:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. In light of the recent development of the above and recent find by Viriditas' of this [1], I believe there is enough evidence now to delete the portal and remove the portal icon/links; with or without prejudice. Kierzek ( talk) 15:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Naziism is a subject of public interest and this Portal is a functional way to organize information concerning Naziism that is found on the Encyclopedia. The "Offensive" parts of the Selected Bios and Articles comes directly from the ledes of those articles, themselves, and many of them have been assessed. Omission of information is never an acceptable delete rationale, rather it serves as an invitation to Be Bold and add that information yourself. I can do without the PermaLinks to the Heer, Luftwaffe, and Kriegsmarine (most Portal content revolves) but a topic with so much high-quality information is clearly ripe for a Portal. In fact, assuming a sufficient number of high-quality images can be created, it would not be hard at all to bring this up to Featured Portal status. If this MFD is held as a "Keep", I personally would be willing to improve it with the goal of Featured Portal status. This page needs to be fixed, not deleted. Achowat ( talk) 15:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Now. This one has a huge creep factor. Compare to Portal:Genocide. Has anyone written a non-emotional explanation of wiki values that AGF of the person posting such info? I looked for some sort of essay for the Neogeolegend discussion, but didn't find anything. Neotarf ( talk) 17:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I respectfully disagree with Achowat that deleting this portal would be "omission of information"; rather, it would simply be deleting the repackaging of existing information (i.e. article content) in a way that (in my opinion) glorifies Nazism. The fact that this portal was created by an editor who has vandalized Israeli templates leaves it irreparably tainted, in my view. If we have to have such a portal, it would be much better to delete this attempt and start over fresh without that obvious baggage. 28bytes ( talk) 17:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with 28bytes that the Editor (rather than the edits) matter. If the tone and the iconography and the lack of information concerning Nazi crimes is an issue, I say we simply fix the tone, iconography, and missing information. But I can see the reasoning behind getting that particular editor's contributions off the page (the information about the block and the editor in question was not posted at the time I began my response), even to the point that it might make sense to just do it, rules be damned. Achowat ( talk) 17:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- 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.