From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: keep . Has been reworked and is now being maintained, invalidating many of the arguments for deletion. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Portal:Nuclear technology/Intro

Portal:Nuclear technology/Intro ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Problematic intro to a portal with zero references. It is advocacy and because this page has so few watchers, it does not get the scrutiny of normal articles. Legacypac ( talk) 08:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep – Deleting the separate intro page would create a red-linked transclusion on the main Portal:Nuclear technology page, breaking the portal. A solution to concerns about the introduction page would be to WP:COPYEDIT it, rather than deleting it. North America 1000 08:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Nope the plan is to translude the intro of Nuclear technology - which needs work itself. Did you want to bundle the whole portal into this nomination? Legacypac ( talk) 08:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
That's probably ok and can be done on the mainpage of the portal. I think there is enough scope and high quality content to build a good portal on this topic. Legacypac ( talk) 23:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Doing that but on the main portal page is what I was trying to suggest above. However, it would show only the lead, which is currently 38 words and needs expanding first. Certes ( talk) 23:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, deleting this page needlessly breaks old revisions of Portal:Nuclear technology. There are both advantages and disadvantages to automated transclusion, but if the lead is suitable and the article is stable, it should be fine to use {{ Transclude lead excerpt}} here. The "advocacy" in the nomination probably refers to this unreverted edit. Instead of this MfD, a revert would have done the trick. — Kusma ( t· c) 20:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Conditional Delete - I am confused as to whether we are proposing to delete a lead page or a portal. Until the relationship can be explained and resolved, it appears that the existing situation is too confused. If the scope of the portal and the subpage can be explained, I may strike or change this !vote, but, at present, we have a mess, and I can't trust the portal advocates to keep any word to clean it up. We already know that they are asking for more trust in their technical skill and their transparency than we have seen. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
    • The scope of this MfD is restricted to the intro subpage. The portal itself is not up for deletion. The computer-generated {{ mfd}} notice (which in turn uses {{ pagetype}}) where it says "portal page" may have been misleading. The intro subpage is one of the subpages of the portal. Each of the boxes that you see on the portal page is a subpage. The intro subpage is merely the text in the topmost box. I would very much like to keep the intro subpage rather than change the structure of the portal. I don't see "advocacy" as being a reason to delete a page as it is so WP:SURMOUNTABLE - easily addressed by rewriting the text - and additional scrutiny is provided by having the text on an article page rather than just the portal subpage. (This change has already been made by Auric [1] - the text you now see is from the Nuclear technology page.) I've had this portal in my sights since 2012. You have my word that I will clean it up. You may not trust me, but I stand on my record. I have already begun work on the portal. The selected biography has changed, and will now change on a weekly basis. The rest will follow in short order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
My main concern is this is an abandoned misleading page. If someone plans to fix it I'm less concerned. It appears to be a valid portal topic, assuming we need portals, which I'm yet to be convinced about. Legacypac ( talk) 21:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
The intro page has already been fixed. It now transcludes the intro of Nuclear technology. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Now Keep. Struck my above !vote. The Introduction page now transcludes content from the main Nuclear technology article and the Nuclear power article, as per this edit that occurred on 25 March 2019, which added {{Transclude lead excerpt|Nuclear technology|paragraphs=1-2}}<br/>{{Transclude lead excerpt|Nuclear power|paragraphs=1-2}}. Concerns about the content of the introduction can be addressed by copy editing the lead sections of those articles. North America 1000 11:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
    Until someone else copy edits the lede of the main article having no idea that it is scrapped and sculptured for this portal. You know, because anyone can edit Wikipedia. Legacypac ( talk) 15:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Your original argument was that the portal "page has so few watchers, it does not get the scrutiny of normal articles." Now it does, because it is a normal article. Vandalism and suppressing WP:FRINGE views from the coal advocates can be handled through our normal editorial processes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 31 March 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.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Nuclear_technology/Intro&oldid=890591697"