Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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) 05:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Prostitution in Canada

Random portal recently created with the "automatic" portal system with few directly related articles and no project to back it up. It links bios like Raymond Gravel implying this Catholic priest is related to prostitution in Canada. It also does not pickup the real articles of this topic like Human trafficking in Canada and Office to Combat Trafficking in Persons or any related bill like Bill C-268 or Bill C-310 its just a portal with somewhat related junk.Moxy (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see no reason for such a portal. PK T(alk) 13:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even the suggestion that our readers would be interested, or should be encouraged to take interest in, a special page to explore the ramifications of the (doubtless fascinating) world of prostitution in Canada is absurd. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful topic for the portal treatment. If it's picking up the wrong topics then fix it. It seems to be picking up Raymond Gravel because someone put him into Template:Prostitution in Canada (the portal transcludes the navbox in a strange way) which seems to be inappropriate. I'm going to remove it and see what happens. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Gravel should be there. It says right in the lede of his bio that "he has been open about the fact that he was a sex-trade worker during [his youth]". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me say I don't really know all that much about this automatic portal generation thing, nor the topics specifically, but it seems that the prostitution and human trafficking topics in Canada follow the treatment of other countries on Wikipedia of being categorized separately. The topics mentioned in the nomination can be found in Template:Human trafficking in Canada (that topic does not have a portal), and there is no cross-categorization between the two topics. I don't know if that's the right way to handle it, I'm just saying that seems to be the normal treatment. As such, the prostitution portal not mentioning human trafficking topics is not an inherent failure of the portal system. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The portal takes its articles from the template of the same name Template:Prostitution in Canada. There were quite a few related articles missing, (based on Category:Prostitution in Canada and its sub-categories) which I have now added. --John B123 (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, terribly made. One of the selected articles is Ratanak International, which has connections to Canada and human trafficking, but really shouldn't just appear without an explanation why. No prejudice against construction of a proper portal. —Kusma (t·c) 16:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any page on this topic needs careful writig and context. Applying a type of AI to a sensitive topic is inappropriate. We have an article on this topic with links to related pages including human trafficing topics. That is the way to handle topics and the way Wikipedia has become the go to knowledge site on the internet. Articles, autogenerated portals few look at, is the core of Wikipedia success. Legacypac (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator clearly has no knowledge of the subject. If he had actually read the article Raymond Gravel, then the link would be obvious. The the remarks about 'real topics' shows a very biased view against prostitution. The 'junk' the portal leads to includes FA articles. --John B123 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The portal (like the navbar) is a terrible way to organise these articles, significantly inferior to Category:Prostitution in Canada. We shouldn't have to guess what an article has to do with the page topic. —Kusma (t·c) 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how an article being in Category:Prostitution in Canada would give any more insight into what connection it had to Prostitution in Canada than if it is included in Portal:Prostitution in Canada? --John B123 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles correctly sorted into subcategories of Category:Prostitution in Canada, making it much clearer how they are related to the topic. —Kusma (t·c) 22:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Do we need 200 portals on prostitution in 200 countries? No, I haven't walked through all of the articles in the portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, good point, this might be overspecific. We already have Portal:Prostitution for the general topic, and there is little about the topic within Canada that is unique from prostitution in other places. I'm going to keep my !vote, but food for thought I guess. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree we don't need 200 odd portals on prostitution, but that's not the case, nor is it relevant. By the same logic as above you could argue that as there is a Portal:Board games, then we don't need portals for individual games and Portal:Chess should be deleted. --John B123 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that this is really all that necessary or valuable. The fact that we don't already have 200 "prostitution in country" portals for every individual country on earth isn't really a compelling counterpoint to Robert McClenon's point — what we already do or don't have today isn't nearly as critical to consider here as what we potentially could have if this were taken to its logical conclusion. The end result would not be necessary, however, because there's absolutely no need for every country to have its own standalone prostitution portal — and there's nothing so uniquely important about prostitution in Canada specifically that this would be necessary as a standalone topic that isn't scaled outward to other countries. Legacypac is also entirely correct that it's a sensitive topic which requires much more careful handling than this — a portal that just automatically machine-generates its content by randomly selecting articles with a prostitution angle is just asking for trouble. It's just not adding enough value to be worthwhile. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 7 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.