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) 03:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Portal:Ohio State University

Portal:Ohio State University ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Underdeveloped portal. Narrow topic.

Since June 2019 the selected article has been a Start-class article. Before this it was Ohio State University.

Four of the five selected bios are C class. One is Start class.

Quotes/1 doesn't mention Jesse Owens' relevance to OSU. The unsourced quote is related to his professional career, not OSU. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 04:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Ohio and Portal:Universities), without creating duplicate entries. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Pinging the participants in the March/April 2019 MFD: @ Ɱ, CoolSkittle, Espresso Addict, Legacypac, Levivich, Meszzy2, Northamerica1000, Pldx1, Pythoncoder, Robert McClenon, SuperHamster, Thryduulf, TonyBallioni, and UnitedStatesian, plus the closer @ Amorymeltzer. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete, and oppose re-creation. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This fails on all three counts:

1. N Broad topic. Ohio State is a moderately large university, with about 64,000 students. However, it's not exceptionally large: it is 21st on the List of the largest United States colleges and universities by enrollment, and it is not one of the 70 entries in List of largest universities and university networks by enrollment. The general unviability of single-university portals is illustrated by the fact that after scrutiny at MFD of many dozens of single-university portals, the only other university portal remaining is Portal:University of Oxford, which has a significantly broader scope on account of being 766 years older than Ohio State.
2. N High readership. The portal's January–June 2019 daily median of only 5 views per day is trivially low. (Note that the daily mean is higher, at 12 views per day, due to a spike during the previous MFD). This is trivially low readership, barely above the background noise of editors poking around, and about 0.5% of the 1,056 average daily views of the head article Ohio State University.
3. N Lots of maintainers. This portal was created in 2016 by SuperHamster ( talk · contribs) who also seems to have been its only significant contributor. The limits of what can be achieved by one editor are illustrated by the fact that after 3 years, and after prolonged scrutiny at MFD 6 months ago, the portal still has only a single selected article.

WP:POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". In this case WP:WikiProject Ohio functions only at a low level of activity (several years since there was any discussion in its talk page, i.e. where one editor replies to another editor), and this search shows that there has never been any discussion there of the university portal.

The B-class head article Ohio State University does a significantly better job at the core portal functions of navigation and showcasing, and a vastly better job as an image gallery thanks to the image gallery built-in to every Wikipedia page for non-logged-in readers. (To try it, just view Ohio State University in a private/incognito window, and click on any image to start the gallery).

Like so many portals, this one is a failed solution in search of a problem. For many years, portals enthusiasts took far too narrow a view of what constitutes a sufficiently broad topic, leading to hundreds of portals which languish as underdeveloped, low readership pages which are often largely dependent on the continued attention of their creator. I don't doubt the creator's good faith, but the overwhelming evidence is that this and other similar university portals are simply too narrow a topic to sustain a portal, so I strongly oppose any re-creation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete - I concur with the analysis by BHG. This portal has one advantage over most of the portals being considered for deletion; it has one more maintainer than most portals. Although multiple maintainers are called for, having one is unusual. Low readership, not enough articles, the usual flawed design with forked subpages. A navbox would work as well. Any plan to re-create a portal on this topic should go via Deletion Review and indicate why to expect readers. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Rescinding vote, not worth fighting over ɱ (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Keep Look, I can do this too: reply

• • And what are the nominator's points for deletion?:
    • "Underdeveloped portal." Looks fully complete, not a criteria for deletion.
    • "Narrow topic." False in my opinion, but yet totally up to one's opinion.
    • "Since June 2019 the selected article has been a Start-class article. Before this it was Ohio State University." Not a criteria for deletion, not relevant here.
    • "Four of the five selected bios are C class. One is Start class." Not a criteria for deletion, not relevant here.
    • "Quotes/1 doesn't mention Jesse Owens' relevance to OSU. The unsourced quote is related to his professional career, not OSU." Not a criteria for deletion, not relevant here. ɱ (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• There are four college portals I am aware of: Portal:Universities, Portal:College football, Portal:University of Oxford and Portal:Ohio State University. This portal is pulling in less than 10 percent of the whole.

WP:POG says article selections should be Featured Articles or Good Articles. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 15:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, thanks, I edited it to specify - it had good views compared to all of the other college portals (pre-2017/2018, whenever you all started going nuts on literally MfDing every single portal that exists). Deleting most of them. And great but FAs and GAs are very few and far between, good luck with that. Just another excuse for deleting most portals, quality content. ɱ (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Look at who you are calling maintainers. Edits by SuperHamster 2016, 2019; Pbsouthwood (drive-by edit); BD2412 (closed requested move request); Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (added DEFAULTSORT); Northamerica1000 (trimmed white space); Xerxes225 (added the word "The," which was immediately reverted); Dreamy Jazz (Portal maintenance status template); BrownHairedGirl (added one category); Mark Schierbecker (nominated the page for deletion). Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 16:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I didn't call them maintainers. Simply many of them are highly active editors likely watching the page, who would be able to stop vandalism and make small corrections. But yet I volunteer myself as a portal maintainer here, making the total two people, more than most portals (the few you all have left to argue to death into deletion). ɱ (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Ɱ, that is a staggeringly dishonest, bad faith summary. Are you going to withdraw it, or do you want me do a point-by-point takedown of your dishonesty? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

What summary are you referring to? The list of editors? What I stated about their reputations and ability to fight vandalism on the portal is valid. Regardless, SuperHamster is a maintainer, and I am going to start editing and stay as a maintainer, so that point is not a valid reason for deletion now. ɱ (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ User:Ɱ, your !vote is founded on a pack of blatant lies, which I have analysed below. Since you have chosen to conduct yourself in this discussion as a blatant liar, your assertion that you are going to start editing and stay as a maintainer has zero credibility. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Analysis of the dishonest, bad-faith !vote above by User:Ɱ. (Note: I describe that !vote as "dishonest" and as made in bad faith because it consists predominantly of assertions which are a) demonstrably untrue, and b) demonstrably known to be untrue by User:Ɱ at the time they were made. That is they lied, posted with clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia by deception.)

1. User:Ɱ untruth #1: One of the largest and most influential universities in the U.S..
   It is not even in the top 20 largest universities in the USA. User:Ɱ knew his statement to be false, because the correct info had been posted above.
2. User:Ɱ untruth #2 High readership. Compared to the main article, every portal has low readership, thanks. I'm pretty sure this portal has average readership compared to most college portals (before this massive, depressing, unwarranted portal deletion).
   The test set in WP:POG is "large numbers of interested readers", and User:Ɱ knew his statement to be false, because the actual sentence in POG had been posted above. If User:Ɱ would like POG to be amended from "large numbers" to "near zero or "comparable to crap portals which were deleted", the WP:RFC is thataway. But this discussion takes places on the basis of the guideline as it currently stands.
   The other portals to which User:Ɱ refers were deleted by consensus. If User:Ɱ believes that those deletions were wrong, they should go to WP:DRV. But unless and until a deletion at MFD is overturned at DRV, it is a consensus decision, and User:Ɱ is bound to respect that WP:CONSENSUS.
3. User:Ɱ untruth #3 Lots of of maintainers.
   User:Ɱ lists as "maintainers":
   • BHG, whose sole edit to the portal was to add a category [1]
   • User:Mark Schierbecker , who sole edit to the portal [2] was to nominate it for deletion
   • User:BD2412, whose two edits [3] [4] consisted of removing an RM notice on a discussion they had closed, and moving the page.
     Describing those driveby editors as maintainers of the page is not even an absurd stretch of the truth; it is a simple lie, designed to mislead and to disrupt consensus-formation.
4. User:Ɱ untruth #4 "Underdeveloped portal." Looks fully complete, not a criteria for deletion.
   Not so; the portal has only one selected article. User:Ɱ knew that, because it was set out both by the nominator, and in my comment to which Mj responded. That's another barefaced lie by User:Ɱ.

I still hope that User:Ɱ will retract their pile of lies, and then either contribute to this discussion in good faith, or take their lying habits somewhere else. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

These are really malicious personal attacks. I don't know why you're so fired up. Sure I initially had a stretch on maintainers, but the university is the largest in Ohio, third largest in the US, etc. It definitely qualifies as large and important. And my #4 was accurate, upon glancing at it, it was fully fleshed out, no real bugs apparent. I did add a few more selected articles/photos, but it really wasn't bad. You're getting so fired up here with accusations, swearing, and personal attacks that I really think you should step away from dealing with portals. ɱ (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Talk about bad faith, I'm the one contributing here. I only see one category you added, otherwise you're just trying to delete hard work here. Not contributive to the encyclopedia at all. ɱ (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ User:Ɱ, the only malice here is your choice to post a pack of lies in order to try to disrupt consensus-formation. I am fired up because I despise lying, and I particularly despise attempts to disrupt consensus-formation by lying.

If you can't participate in MFD without posting a steam of lies, then I really think you should step away from dealing with portals.

If you object to being called out for your dishonesty, WP:ANI is thataway. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, you've shown your true colors, in light of an honest mistake. ɱ (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC) In that I glanced at the list of editors and assumed more had edited more, and still backed it up with that you all are -still- capable of anti-vandalism and minor corrections as needed. reply

I could easily point out lies and false accusations, like "[me posting] in order to try to disrupt consensus-formation". I voted keep and improved the portal because I want to keep it. If you view all 'keep' votes as disruptive to your rampage through MfD, deleting portals left and right, then I suppose it is disruptive, but only to that irrational, extremist mission. ɱ (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ User:Ɱ, those are not honest mistakes. They are untruths which you knew to be untrue because the truth had been posted in the comments to which you replied, and they are untruths which you posted with explicit malice, as you set out in your reply to Mark: whenever you all started going nuts on literally MfDing every single portal that exists. Calling other editors "nuts" is malicious personal attack.

My first response was to explicitly invite you withdraw your lies, as an alternative to having me analyse them [5]. You chose not to do so, so I posted the analysis which I had hoped would have become un-necessary.

As you know very well, I do not view all 'keep' votes as disruptive. I view deliberately dishonest !votes in any direction as disruptive. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

"They are untruths which you knew to be untrue because the truth had been posted in the commenst to which you replied" what? This makes no logical sense. My replies to comments are not some admission of guilt... I stretched the truth and later admitted it, and in turn you're calling me a blatant liar with bad faith whose vote ought to be stricken, who is disrupting the process of consensus, etc... ɱ (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ User:Ɱ, try to follow the law of holes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I just won't let you attack me so harshly without some sort of reply. If you want to get back on topic, by all means... ɱ (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Since it has been said that this is one of four remaining university and college portals, I am providing the metrics for those four portals. None of them really satisfy the portal guidelines. (If the portal guidelines are not guidelines, common sense should be used, and the guidelines or would-be guidelines are common sense. At least they are common sense to an editor who doesn't see mystical value in portals.) Adding three more articles won't bring the pageview rate up above the noise level, let alone to 50 to make this a well-viewed but poorly maintained portal.
• I am not nominating the other three portals for deletion, but this table illustrates that none of them are in good shape, which says something about portals in general.
• This portal may really now have two maintainers, User:SuperHamster and User: Ɱ. The count of 10 maintainers was incredible (sense 1), unworthy of belief, and should have been known to be untrue.
• User:BrownHairedGirl: As I have observed from time to time, not every editor who says things that are not worthy of belief is lying. The editor may be under a delusion due to belief in the mystical value of portals, or too stupid (but that is a competency issue), or otherwise deeply confused. In any case, counting User:Mark Schierbecker as a maintainer of the portal is too absurd to be even a plausible lie.
• At least now User: Ɱ admits that they stretched the truth, which is not the same as an honest mistake. If you stretch anything too much, it breaks. It doesn't matter whether their arguments were lies, because we know that they were untrue.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Robert McClenon, as you note, these claims even went so far as listing Mark Schierbecker as a "maintainer". Since Mark's only edit to the portal was to nominate it for deletion, that's like asserting that Guy Fawkes was a "maintainer" of the Palace of Westminster or that Paul Tibbets was a maintainer of Hiroshima. That is not in any sense a stretch; it's a straightforward inversion of reality. The absurdity doesn't negate the fact that it is a known untruth, i.e. lie. And an editor sped-reading the nomination might not spot the absurdity of the assertion.

I agree that some editors do seem to have a belief in the mystical value of portals, and they are entitled to that belief. But while they are entitled to hold and express their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ BrownHairedGirl given the blatant, absurd dishonesty of user ɱ and their personal attacks here, I would be fully supportive if you wished to take them to ANI. Such conduct should not be tolerated and could spread to other MfD's as well. Newshunter12 ( talk) 03:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

You all are so obsessed with clashing with my keep vote instead of simply letting consensus build here; remind me next time to just steer clear of all these farce MfDs. ɱ (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

User:Ɱ - In these MFDs, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts, and if you can't distinguish fact from opinion, or if you intend to say things that are not true, it would indeed be a good idea to steer clear of MFDs. (I am not sure if there is any place in Wikipedia where truth is unimportant. I do not think that there is. But it is essential in articles, and in XFDs.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

As I already noted, consensus-formation is undermined by the actions of an editor who chooses to disrupt the process by posting falsehoods. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)

Only thing I'm disrupting is this mass portal deletion effort, as already noted. ɱ (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Metrics for University Portals

Resumption of Discussion of Portal:Ohio State University

• Delete, and oppose re-creation per the nom and the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one fails WP:POG on broadness (narrow topic), maintainers (only one at most), readership (almost none), and WikiProject (no involvement) grounds. It's a useless time suck that lures readers away from a much more developed and versatile B-Class head article. This portal is failed solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 ( talk) 03:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Newshunter12. The main article unsurprisingly has everything related to the topic. This page has very weak readership and is not helpful particularly since it wastes resources that should be directed towards improving the articles. Attempts to add glitter do not overcome the fact the topic is narrow. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  Careless glance, does it mention that the university owns and operates an airport, or any in-depth details about the campus buildings? The portal does; the main article does not. ɱ (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete – per nom and above, and per my !vote in the first nomination: this is too narrow of a topic for a portal and it's promotional. I didn't read all that text above, I have to admit. I stopped at the claim that OSU is one of the largest and "most influential" universities in the US. That's got to be a joke. One of the most influential in the NCAA, sure, but it's not even one of the most-respected public universities (like Univ California or UPenn), nevermind one of the most influential in the country. But all that aside, it's too narrow, unmaintained, not enough readers. – Leviv ich 14:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  Why does nobody care to actually spend a minute improving it, instead of just arguing for its deletion? Do you not care about how Wikipedia is still young, needing to grow, and most articles are way worse than this portal is? How this MfD is just erasing careful work? Why do you all not care? ɱ (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  Busywork on the portal would not alter the fact that the topic is too narrow. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  That's an opinion with no specifics outlined in any policy or guideline. ɱ (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  It's part of WP:POG, as set out repeatedly above. The data on which this portal is assessed as narrow is also set out above. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  Ɱ, I don't care about Portal:Ohio State University because I care about Ohio State University, the article, which is B-class, and should be FA-class, because you're right, it's one of the largest universities in the world. This portal basically duplicates the content on the article, and thereby unproductively and inefficiently takes up our limited resources. It's bikeshedding–a distraction from the article. I agree with you that we're young and growing and because of that, we can't afford to spread ourselves thin or fiddle with portals when there are articles to write. – Leviv ich 04:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per findings by Newshunter12, Robert McClenon, and BrownHairedGirl. Any user wishing to resume proper maintenance of this portal and rectify the abysmal pageviews (*coughcoughɱcoughcough*) may do so at deletion review. ToThAc ( talk) 18:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete this worthless junk portal forever. Catfurball ( talk) 19:38, 11 September 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.