Open main menu

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion)

Administrator instructions

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion include:

Information on the processEdit

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletionEdit

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers - sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.
  • Proposed deletion is an option for non-controversial deletions of books (in both User: and Book: namespaces).

Please familiarize yourself with the following policiesEdit

How to list pages for deletionEdit

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.
Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
If the nomination is for a userbox, please put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the {{mfd}}, as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

or

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:MFDWarning|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructionsEdit

XFD backlog
  May Jun Jul Aug TOTAL
CfD 0 15 39 20 74
TfD 0 0 0 9 9
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 1 0 1
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussionsEdit

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Contents

Current discussionsEdit

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

August 23, 2019Edit

Wikipedia:Table of consonantsEdit

Wikipedia:Table of consonants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obsolete and abandoned (e.g. it uses the PUA⟩ instead of the current Unicode ⟨⟩). We have List of consonants, International Phonetic Alphabet chart, etc. anyway. Nardog (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Charlie HargrettEdit

Draft:Charlie Hargrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ‑Scottywong| soliloquize || 02:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently kept alive as a personal web page--see the history. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not my personal web page as was suggested. I tried to build an entry about a guitarist that deserves his own page. Talleng2 (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep in draft, which is where this is. Not being edited disruptively or resubmitted tendentiously. Allow editor to work. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Blackfoot (band) as per User:Legacypac's 17:23, 9 March 2018‎. Protect this redirect. The sources do not justify a WP:SPINOUT of the former guitarist from this band. He does not independently pass WP:BIO. Should anyone seek to do a spinout of members from the band, they should seek a consensus for this at Talk:Blackfoot (band). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| soliloquize || 02:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

August 22, 2019Edit

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The abominable Wiki trollEdit

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The abominable Wiki troll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is absolutely no value in having this page about a highly disruptive LTA and it should be deleted per WP:DENY. Praxidicae (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose based on weak arguments. Further elaboration is required. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
That's not how this works. WP:DENY is plenty reason and there is no added value into describing all the doings of LTAs who crave attention, which is exactly what these pages do. Praxidicae (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - the page is pointless. A simple search of ANI and SPI gives the same results (maybe more.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - As long as there is a class of LTA pages and this troll is a Long-Term Abuser, there doesn't seem to be a policy reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think this is warranted because of this: List of music considered the worst. For almost a year, and heavily for the last six months, there has a been a continuous, often heated, discussion about the inclusion of The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (album). The entry was added by a suspected sockpuppet IP of TAWT, then re-added by other suspected sockpuppet IPs and confirmed sockpuppet accounts multiple times after attempts to remove it, with the rational being a consensus is needed to remove it. Several months ago an RFC was started to reach such a consensus on its removal, with TAWT being one of the chief proponent's of its inclusion through his various sockpuppet accounts (which ironically includes him insinuating multiple remove votes are from sockpuppets), and after two months it was finally closed with "no consensus" [1]. Since it's close there has been continued discussions to improve the article by creating a criteria stronger than the one that allowed its addition, but it is moving below a snail's pace (after four months, it is now in its third "pre-RFC" discussion), and in that time it has been discovered that TAWT is architect behind this whole mess. However, even after discovering this, his trolling of the entry has been allowed to continue. Earlier today, before making the LTA, Electricburst attempted implementing DENY and preemptively remove the trolling (the multiple pre-RFC discussions are all leaning extremely heavily to criteria that will see the album removed), only to be reverted [2] and told DENY does not apply and TAWT's troll entry must remain. So how do you DENY when you're not allowed to DENY? It's not a very strong anti-trolling message WP is sending when obvious trolling is allowed to continue so long as you use sockpuppets to get people to parrot "Consensus! Consensus!" An LTA may not be the best route to take when dealing with a troll, but then again it should not be this difficult to remove trolling. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:895A:7F9:59E0:50B6 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, great. An anonymous editor comes out of nowhere to parrot the same argument of this page’s creator, that somehow this needs to be kept because of some content dispute. Nothing fishy here... Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I have absolutely nothing to do with that IP address. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 02:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm the IP who for months have been one of the people trying to improve the Worst Music list by getting entries that don't belong (i.e. Sgt. Pepper) removed [3] [4]. And as I said when I brought news of the dispute to WP:NPOVN (which at the very least got something to happen to the then never ending RFC) I'd be happy to provide you with a list of every IP I've ended up posting under. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:895A:7F9:59E0:50B6 (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete The page was created five hours ago and has no purpose other than to record the achievements of yet another troll. The claimed information is pointless—guess what, it's another sockpuppeter who has a lack of respect of authority and who can be found in a search of AN/ANI (see the searchbox at the top of WP:AN). WP:DENY is best. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Putting the information all in one centralized page is a worthwhile endeavor, especially for the purpose of letting others know the extent, for keeping this vandal forefront in institutional memory. If anything, the new LTA page should be expanded so that it is more useful. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    • What information? There has to be a balance between the benefits of keeping a potentially useful page (it's not useful now) and the own-goal of encouraging trolls by commemorating their achievements. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Links to discussions are good information. More can be written to make this page even more useful. You don't vote delete just because a page that could be good isn't quite good enough yet. Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Curating a list of ANI discussions is not useful—this search finds the listed reports and one more. Trolls thrive on attention and an LTA page like this damages the project. The concept that pages should be fixed and not be deleted applies to mainspace articles, not long-term abusers. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Who is the Artist Mojer who's paintings were reproduced by Prints For Pleasure in England?Edit

Draft:Who is the Artist Mojer who's paintings were reproduced by Prints For Pleasure in England? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOTAFORUM Toa Nidhiki05 19:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not a suitable subject for an article. I've added a note to the author's talk page pointing them towards Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. › Mortee talk 20:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Mortee: FYI, the user followed up and their question has yet to receive an answer. –MJLTalk 02:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - It's a draft. It doesn't need deleting at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I considered nominating it as well, but I saw this was a restoration via WP:REFUND.. I'd honestly like to get Hut 8.5's thoughts on this matter because I was utterly baffled to see this was restored, but maybe Hut knows something I don't? I'll admit that I have no clue how REFUND works. –MJLTalk 02:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • G13 deletions can be restored on request, as long as they don't qualify for speedy deletion for some other reason. WP:NOTAFORUM is not a speedy deletion reason. I did make it very clear that it would not be acceptable unless rewritten. Hut 8.5 06:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Will never be an encyclopedia article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

August 21, 2019Edit

Portal:The BahamasEdit

Portal:The Bahamas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned mini-portal on a narrow topic, viz. the small island nation of The Bahamas. Created in 2011, it still consists of a slim set of fake DYKs, and only 7 selected pages, which is only a third of the WP:POG minimum of 20. One of the biog pages fails to mention that its subject has been dead for three years; another that it subject retired 6 years ago.

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 each of the three counts:
  1.  N Broad topic. The Bahamas is a small, developing island nation with a population of only about 330,000.[5] This is small for a geographical portal. The experience of data examined at many dozens of MFDs on geographical portals is that regions or cities with population under a million rarely achieve high levels or readership or maintainers, and that several million is needed to get a decent chance of viability. For example, if The Bahamas was an American city, its population would place it at 58 in the list, between Santa Ana and Riverside. It has barely half the population of the smallest US state, Wyoming, and the portals for 12 of the smallest US states have been deleted because of their narrowness and abandonment.
  2.  N High readership. Clear fail. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 6 views per day is trivially low.
  3.  N Lots of of maintainers. Clear fail. The content is unchanged since 2011, apart from a few formatting edits, and the addition in 2018 of two biog pages.

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.". However, WikiProject Bahamas is at best dormant. The last non-notification post there was in 2012[6], and it got no replies.

Even more tellingly, the proposed creation of this portal was announced[7] by Dannyboybs18 (talk · contribs) in 2011 on a please-join-in, but I'm-going-ahead-anyway basis, and nobody replied to the post.

So after telling the project I will wait for someone to respond to this for three days, Dannyboybs18 created the portal[8] less than 9 hours after the announcement. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", but Dannyboybs18 did not follow that guidance: his last edit to the portal was only 4 months later, in December 2011.[9] Whatever Dannyboybs18's reasons for abandoning the portal, portals need maintainers ... and since Danny moved on, the only non-formatting maintenance was the 2018 creation Of two new biog pages.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:The Bahamas shows a slim set of sub-pages:

So what we're left with is an abandoned portal which fails at least five points of POG: narrow topic, low readership, no maintainers, no supporting WikiProject, and creator who didn't maintain it.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer, and do a much better job that all but the best-developed portals . Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:The Bahamas topics, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link. Or try it only on any link in the head article The Bahamas.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article The Bahamas, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow of ~20 images. It's a vastly better image gallery than the 4 images on portal, which are displayed

Like too many portals (but thankfully not all), this one is failed solution to a non-problem. It was created in a hurry and abandoned soon after, and after 8 years it's time to stop luring readers away from the much-better-maintained head article to this stunted relic which misleads readers. Time to just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per 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 falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to abandoned junk that misinforms them. I also oppose re-creation, as nearly eight years of hard evidence shows the Bahamas is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl - Too little readership, too few articles, too little maintenance. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Palatine ForestEdit

Portal:Palatine Forest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Narrow topic, with a low readership, and poor maintenance.

The topic is the Palatinate Forest, a low-mountain region in southwestern Germany, located in the Palatinate in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate.

This portal uses the mega-navbox format which its creator and main maintainer Bermicourt has imported from the German-language Wikipedia. I personally think that this is a vastly superior format to the predominant one-at-a-time "selected article" style of navbox, but sadly readers seem no more interested in reading this superior type of portal than the horrible old purge-for-new-selection format.

However, this portal clearly fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". It fails on all three counts:

  1.  N Broad topic. Clear fail, because this is a narrow topic. Category:Palatinate Forest + subcats contains a total of only 975 unique articles, of which only 610 are non-stubs. Using AWB for analysis, I found that 180 of those 610 articles are start-class. That leaves only 430 articles above start-class, which fails the POG requirement that "The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section". None of those 430 articles are GA-class or FA-class.
  2.  N High readership. Clear fail. The portal's January–June 2015 daily average of only 6 views per day is trivially low. At this level, the background noise of editors checking and maintaining the page forms a significant part of the total readership.
  3.  N Lots of of maintainers. Fail. The portal's history shows little maintenance. The unmaintained pages include Portal:Palatine Forest/New Articles, Portal:Palatine Forest/Article of the Month and Portal:Palatine Forest/Articles for Improvement, each of which was last updated in 2013.

Unlike some other similarly-built German portals, this one does not have a "Wanted articles" section. Instead, there are redlinks in each section. But much of the rest could be a basis for navboxes, so I would happily support moving the portal to the appropriate WikiProject, which is probably WikiProject Germany.

Bermicourt has indicated elsewhere (e.g. at MFD:Portal:Eifel) that portals such as this are primarily intended to assist editors rather than readers. This conflicts with WP:PORTAL, which says that " Portals are meant primarily for readers". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment to User:BrownHairedGirl – The interior of a portal is a black box. Readers don't see whether it is using the old design with forked subpages or the newer superior mega-navbox design. They see a portal. The design improvement makes the portal more accurate and has other advantages in the long run, but the readers don't notice. (They do notice if a portal has incorrect information on a head of government). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question for User:Bermicourt – If this is primarily for editors and not for readers, why not move it into project space? Portals are reader-facing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question – Is this a toy portal? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Views sought. Okay, so as suggested I've moved this portal into project space. I must confess I thought it was one of the single-page portals that just required a simple move, but it wasn't so I hope I've moved all the subpages correctly, but at least it gives us an example of what that could look like. Now it's in project space it shouldn't be visible from mainspace and page views become irrelevant. It's solely a project tool. Views? BTW I'm totally happy to move it back if that is the eventual consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Moving it into wp namespace deals with many of my concerns about portals (e.g. showing poorly-maintained material to readers and wasting the time of editors who have no interest in promoting portals). However, the page currently refers to "portal" etc at least 14 times so needs some work if it's not a portal. It also has inlinks that'd need deleting/amending. There appears to be a lot of unnecessary infrastructure here (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany/Palatine Forest/Article of the Month was created in 2013, but has never been used to propose an article). DexDor (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for moving it, @Bermicourt. If any or all of the portal will be helpful in project space, then I am quite happy for it to be moved rather than deleted. However, it still has links from article space with the redirect from Portal:Palatine Forest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Palatine Forest, and the closing admin should delete that redirect.
Now that it's in portal space, it would be a good idea to follow DexDor's suggestion, and remove the "portal" labelling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Move @Bermicourt Thank you for moving this page out of portal space. That is a good compromise, as is deleting any remaining redirects, portal links, etc. I hope you don't take my delete votes for other portals you have made personally. Not trying to be harsh, just calling it as I see it, and with so few views for these portals and their head articles, I can't help but see them as existing for you and not readers. I admire your passion for history and culture, I just don't think this stuff warrants portals. Would you be open to possibly moving the other pages like Portal:Westerwald out of portal space in the same manner? Newshunter12 (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Move to project space of this toy portal. Would be a good idea for other toy portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move per above. –MJLTalk 03:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:WesterwaldEdit

Portal:Westerwald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Narrow topic, with a trivially low readership, and poor maintenance.

The topic is the Westerwald, a low mountain range on the right bank of the river Rhine in the German federal states of Rhineland-Palatinate, Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia.

This portal uses the mega-navbox format which its creator and main maintainer Bermicourt has imported from the German-language Wikipedia. I personally think that this is a vastly superior format to the predominant one-at-a-time "selected article" style of navbox, but sadly readers seem no more interested in reading this superior type of portal than the horrible old purge-for-new-selection format.

However, this portal clearly fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". It fails on two of the three counts:

  1.  N Broad topic. Clear fail, because this is a narrow topic. Category:Westerwald + subcats contains a total of only 453 unique articles, of which only 164 are non-stubs. Using AWB for analysis, I found that 41 of those 164 articles are start-class. That leaves only 123 articles above start-class, which fails the POG requirement that "The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section". None of those 123 articles are GA-class or FA-class.
    As a result, of the first 12 articles listed in the rotation at Portal:Westerwald/Feature, 7 are start-class and the rest are stubs.
  2.  N High readership. Clear fail. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 6 views per day is trivially low. At this level, the background noise of editors checking and maintaining the page forms a significant part of the total readership.
  3.  N Lots of of maintainers. Fail. The portal's history shows little maintenance. The maintenance has not extended to the "Image of the Month" (at Portal:Westerwald/Image of the Month), whch has had the same content since its creation in 2017. The "Feature of Week" at Portal:Westerwald/Feature has had only one edit in the last 12 months, and is in poor shape: only the first 41 of 54 entries have been translated from German, and 11 of those are red links. Of the remaining 13 entries, 9 are redlinks.

Unlike some other similarly-built German portals, this one does not have a "Wanted articles" section. But much of the rest could be a basis for navboxes, so I would happily support moving the portal to the appropriate WikiProject, which is probably WikiProject Germany.

Bermicourt has indicated elsewhere (e.g. at MFD:Portal:Eifel) that portals such as this are primarily intended to assist editors rather than readers. This conflicts with WP:PORTAL, which says that " Portals are meant primarily for readers". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment to User:BrownHairedGirl – The interior of a portal is a black box. Readers don't see whether it is using the old design with forked subpages or the newer superior mega-navbox design. They see a portal. The design improvement makes the portal more accurate and has other advantages in the long run, but the readers don't notice. (They do notice if a portal has incorrect information on a head of government). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question for User:Bermicourt – If this is primarily for editors and not for readers, why not move it into project space? Portals are reader-facing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question – Is this a toy portal? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as the grounds for deletion are narrow, irrelevant and not universally accepted. The guidelines are neither fit for purpose - being over a decade out of date - nor authoritative as they are the subject of a current discussion. Page views are irrelevant while the search engine fails to find them portals and so are no more valid for portals than for categories. Portals are not set up as articles (although they could be if there were the will); they are navigation and project tools. And even articles are not deleted for lack of page views. In terms of notability, this is a major cultural and natural region of the European Central Uplands. This proposal is just another part of the ongoing campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus and related ongoing attempts to agree new and more up to date guidelines. Bermicourt (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Bermicourt, I understand that you don't work your work deleted, but your !vote is counter-factual:
  1. False assertion: major cultural and natural region of the European Central Uplands. Reality: as clearly explained in the nomination, it has only only 123 articles above start-class.
  2. False assertion: Page views are irrelevant while the search engine fails to find them portals. Reality: this is a tedious piece of recurring nonsense, which portals fans should have dropped long ago. The search engine does find portals, if the user searches for portals. See this search for portals containing the word "Europe". If the user searches for articles, they get articles: not categories or talk page or Wikipedia pages or draft pages or templates or modules.
    If Bermicourt or anyone else wants to propose that a search for articles should return pages which are not articles, then WP:RFC is that away. If Bermicourt or anyone else wants to propose that the page view criterion should be dropped because search works as designed, then RFC is in the same direction.
  3. False assertion: guidelines are neither fit for purpose ... nor authoritative as they are the subject of a current discussion. Reality: if and when an RFC amends or replaces the guidelines, we can use the new guideline. But the fact that Bermicourt and a few other defenders of failed portals don't like the guidelines being applied does not invalidate the guidance. That's a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance.
  4. Maliciously false assertion: This proposal is just another part of the ongoing campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus.
    Reality:
    • Community consensus at WP:ENDPORTALS was not to delete the portal namespace. It was not a consensus to keep portals which clearly fail the guidelines.
    • This is not a campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals. Having discussed this with Bermicourt many times, he well knows that is not my aim at MFD, and he should not try to strengthen his case at MFD by misrepresenting me that way. Such dishonesty is uncivil WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.
      As I have sated many times, I am engaged in ongoing effort to remove the junk which fails the commonsense parts of current guidelines and has accumulated over 13 years neglect of the portal namespace. An ultimate decision on the future of portals is needed, but deleting abandoned junk doesn't prejudice that decision. In the meantime if Bermicourt wants to advocate and end to the deletion of abandoned junk portals, he is free to open an RFC which should be called WP:KEEPJUNKPORTALS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. WP:POG states portals should be about: "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." This portal has one fan-maintainer but maintenance is still spotty, and it fails at least two other planks of POG. It is about an incredibly narrow topic (ex. the head article Westerwald had only 90 views per day from January-June 2019) and only has 6 readers a day, which is incredibly trivial, not the large numbers POG requires. A substantial portion of the views at that rate are just a background noise of accidental clicks by readers and maintenance/reviews by its creator. I oppose re-creation, as nearly two years of hard evidence and common sense show the Westerwald are not a broad enough topic under WP:POG, nor do they attract large numbers of readers. The portal is just a recreation area for the creator. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2019 (U
  • Neutral – This is a toy portal. It appears to fail the breadth of subject matter and readership tests but is well-maintained. It is really lack of maintenance that is the critical problem with most portals. It would be better to Move this toy portal to project space, but, in the absence of such an action, it can be ignored in portal space as useless but harmless. (Only unmaintained or broken portals are harmful.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Alberto DeJesusEdit

Draft:Alberto DeJesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article needs to be deleted and salted (the creator is indef blocked) because the sources point to it being a hoax beginning with the first cited source: Urban Dictionary. Other sources include his high school activities, InstaGram, FB, Voyager which is basically a clickbait company that publishes what you write, primary sources that show licensing & permitting but the address used for his "businesses" (60 STATE STREET SUITE 700, BOSTON, MA 02109) belongs to The Hub Group. There is no way a 20 yo traveling 200 mi. day can work and go to school, and hold the positions he claims. Seriously - DELETE & SALT so this doesn't keep happening. Atsme Talk 📧 16:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - as per nom, and Salt. Keeps getting recreated. Onel5969 TT me 17:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Probably a hoax or fraudulent, definitely promotional. Definitely a history of misconduct. Use silver nitrate, a caustic salt of silver which is used by dentists to cauterize mouth sores. Protect against re-creation. Wash the socks with silver nitrate also. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Looked over everything from the poor refs, unsubstantiated business address and geolocate of the image used and its a hoax.--MONGO (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Elbe Sandstone MountainsEdit

Portal:Elbe Sandstone Mountains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Very narrow topic, with a trivially low readership, and poor maintenance.

The topic is the Elbe Sandstone Mountains, a a mountain range straddling the border between the state of Saxony in southeastern Germany and the North Bohemian region of the Czech Republic, with about three-quarters of the area lying on the German side.

This portal uses the mega-navbox format which its creator and main maintainer Bermicourt has imported from the German-language Wikipedia. I personally think that this is a vastly superior format to the predominant one-at-a-time "selected article" style of navbox, but sadly readers seem no more interested in reading this superior type of portal than the horrible old purge-for-new-selection format.

However, this portal clearly fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". It fails all three counts:

  1.  N Broad topic. Clear fail, because this is a very narrow topic. Category:Elbe Sandstone Mountains + subcats contains a total of only 149 unique articles, of which only 96 are non-stubs. Using AWB for analysis, I found that 18 of those 96 articles are start-class. That leaves only 78 articles above start-class, which fails the POG requirement that "The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section". None of those 78 articles are GA-class or FA-class.
  2.  N High readership. Clear fail. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 5 views per day is trivially low. At this level, the background noise of editors checking and maintaining the page forms a significant part of the total readership.
  3.  N Lots of of maintainers. Fail. The portal's history shows that most of the maintenance has been done by the creator Bermicourt. However, that maintenance has not extended to either the "Article of the Month" (at Portal:Elbe Sandstone Mountains/Article of the Month) or the "Image of the Month" (at Portal:Elbe Sandstone Mountains/Entry), neither of which has had a single edit of any form since May 2011.

Unlike some other similarly-built German portals, this one does not have a "Wanted articles" section. But much of the rest could be a basis for navboxes, so I would happily support moving the portal to the appropriate WikiProject, which is probably WikiProject Germany.

Bermicourt has indicated elsewhere (e.g. at MFD:Portal:Eifel) that portals such as this are primarily intended to assist editors rather than readers. This conflicts with WP:PORTAL, which says that " Portals are meant primarily for readers". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment to User:BrownHairedGirl – The interior of a portal is a black box. Readers don't see whether it is using the old design with forked subpages or the newer superior mega-navbox design. They see a portal. The design improvement makes the portal more accurate and has other advantages in the long run, but the readers don't notice. (They do notice if a portal has incorrect information on a head of government).Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question for User:Bermicourt – If this is primarily for editors and not for readers, why not move it into project space? Portals are reader-facing.Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - Is this a toy portal? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as the grounds for deletion are narrow, irrelevant and not universally accepted. The guidelines are neither fit for purpose - being over a decade out of date - nor authoritative as they are the subject of a current discussion. Page views are irrelevant while the search engine fails to find them portals and so are no more valid for portals than for categories. Portals are not set up as articles; they are navigation and project tools. And even articles are not deleted for lack of page views. In terms of notability, these are a major mountain range and natural region either side of the Czech-German border. This is just another part of the ongoing campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus and related ongoing attempts to agree new and more up to date guidelines. Bermicourt (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
That contains several misleading statements. The criteria for deleting articles is different because deleting an article is likely to delete unique content from the encyclopedia. In terms of notability in a global encyclopedia this topic is pretty low (e.g. it doesn't make VA5 and even Wikiproject Germany only rates it mid-importance). DexDor (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bermicourt, I understand that you don't work your work deleted, but your !vote is counter-factual:
  1. False assertion: In terms of notability .... Reality: WP:NOTABILITY is a test applied to articles. This is not an article; it is a portal, for which the equivalent tests include breadth of topic.
    If Bermicourt wants to set aside the "broad topic" requirement of POG, he should open an RFC to propose the creation of a flood of narrow portals like the portalspammer TTH created last year.
  2. False assertion: Page views are irrelevant while the search engine fails to find them portals. Reality: this is a tedious piece of recurring nonsense, which portals fans should have dropped long ago. The search engine does find portals, if the user searches for portals. See this search for portals containing the word "Europe". If the user searches for articles, they get articles: not categories or talk page or Wikipedia pages or draft pages or templates or modules.
    If Bermicourt or anyone else wants to propose that a search for articles should return pages which are not articles, then WP:RFC is that away. If Bermicourt or anyone else wants to propose that the page view criterion should be dropped because search works as designed, then RFC is in the same direction.
  3. False assertion: even articles are not deleted for lack of page views. Reality: as DexDor noted, articles contain unique content. Portals are navigation/showcasing tools, and are assessed on different criteria.
  4. False assertion: major mountain range and natural region. Reality: as clearly explained in the nomination, it has only 78 articles above start-class.
  5. False assertion: guidelines are neither fit for purpose ... nor authoritative as they are the subject of a current discussion. Reality: if and when an RFC amends or replaces the guidelines, we can use the new guideline. But the fact that Bermicourt and a few other defenders of failed portals don't like the guidelines being applied does not invalidate the guidance. That's a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance.
  6. Maliciously false assertion: This proposal is just another part of the ongoing campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus.
    Reality:
    • Community consensus at WP:ENDPORTALS was not to delete the portal namespace. It was not a consensus to keep portals which clearly fail the guidelines.
    • This is not a campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals. Having discussed this with Bermicourt many times, he well knows that is not my aim at MFD, and he should not try to strengthen his case at MFD by misrepresenting me that way. Such dishonesty is uncivil WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.
      As I have stated many times, I am engaged in ongoing effort to remove the junk which fails the commonsense parts of current guidelines and has accumulated over 13 years neglect of the portal namespace. An ultimate decision on the future of portals is needed, but deleting abandoned junk doesn't prejudice that decision. In the meantime if Bermicourt wants to advocate and end to the deletion of abandoned junk portals, he is free to open an RFC which should be called WP:KEEPJUNKPORTALS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. WP:POG states portals should be about: "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." This portal has one steady fan-maintainer, but it fails at least two other planks of POG. It is about an incredibly narrow topic (ex. the head article Elbe Sandstone Mountains had only 51 views per day from January-June 2019) and only has 5 readers a day, which is incredibly trivial, not the large numbers POG requires. A substantial portion of the views at that rate are just a background noise of accidental clicks by readers and maintenance/reviews by its creator. I oppose re-creation, as eight years of hard evidence and common sense show the Elbe Sandstone Mountains are not a broad enough topic under WP:POG, nor does it attract large numbers of readers. It's just a recreation area for the creator. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral – This is a toy portal. It appears to fail the breadth of subject matter and readership tests but is well-maintained. It is really lack of maintenance that is the critical problem with most portals. It would be better to Move this toy portal to project space, but, in the absence of such an action, it can be ignored in portal space as useless but harmless. (Only unmaintained or broken portals are harmful.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Punjabi cinema task forceEdit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Punjabi cinema task force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn "task force" created in 2016 without prior discussion at either WP:FILM or WP:PUNJAB, the author of this page and sole participant was Peeta Singh who I believe was topic banned from Punjab-related articles and is now indef blocked. Had the idea been pitched to WP:FILM it would no doubt have been pointed out that this is entirely redundant to existing task forces for Indian and Pakistani cinema. No interest or contributions from other users, this "task force" consists of nothing more than an unused user box and a couple of empty categories. PC78 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per all the evidence above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per User:PC78. We don't need a stillborn task force that was created by a banned user. No contributions from any users, since the originator was a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk)

Portal:Ore MountainsEdit

Portal:Ore Mountains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Very narrow topic, with a trivially low readership.

The topic is the Ore Mountains, a mountainous region and mountain range on the border between the Czech Republic and the federal German state of Saxony.

This portal uses the mega-navbox format which its creator and diligent maintainer Bermicourt has imported from the German-language Wikipedia. I personally think that this is a vastly superior format to the predominant one-at-a-time "selected article" style of navbox, but sadly readers seem no more interested in reading this superior type of portal than the horrible old purge-for-new-selection format.

However, this portal clearly fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". It fails on two of the three counts:

  1.  N Broad topic. Clear fail, because this is a very narrow topic. Category:Ore Mountains + subcats contains a total of only 319 unique articles, of which only 144 are non-stubs. Using AWB for analysis, I found that 38 of those 144 articles are start-class. That leaves only 106 articles above start-class, which fails the POG requirement that "The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section". None of those 108 articles are GA-class or FA-class.
  2.  N High readership. Clear fail. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 5 views per day is trivially low. At this level, the background noise of editors checking and maintaining the page forms a significant part of the total readership.
  3.  ?? Lots of of maintainers. The portal's history shows that most of the maintenance has been done by the creator Bermicourt. However, Bermicourt works to very high standards of diligence and accuracy, so I don't cont that against the portal.

The portal includes a useful "Wanted articles" section, and much of the rest would make an excellent basis for navboxes, so I would happily support moving the portal to the appropriate WikiProject, which is probably WikiProject Germany.

Bermicourt has indicated elsewhere (e.g. at MFD:Portal:Eifel) that portals such as this are primarily intended to assist editors rather than readers. This conflicts with WP:PORTAL, which says that " Portals are meant primarily for readers". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment to User:BrownHairedGirl – The interior of a portal is a black box. Readers don't see whether it is using the old design with forked subpages or the newer superior mega-navbox design. They see a portal. The design improvement makes the portal more accurate and has other advantages in the long run, but the readers don't notice. (They do notice if a portal has incorrect information on a head of government).Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question for User:Bermicourt – If this is primarily for editors and not for readers, why not move it into project space? Portals are reader-facing.Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - Is this a toy portal? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as the grounds for deletion are narrow, irrelevant and not universally accepted. The guidelines are neither fit for purpose - being over a decade out of date - nor authoritative as they have been flagged as the subject of a discussion for some time. Page views are irrelevant while the search engine fails to find them portals and so are no more valid for portals than for categories. Portals are not set up as articles; they are navigation and project tools. And even articles are not deleted for lack of page views. In terms of notability, the Ore Mountains have for centuries been a major political boundary in Europe as well as an important economic, geographical and natural region along the Czech-German border. This is just another part of the ongoing campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus and related ongoing attempts to agree new and more up to date guidelines. Bermicourt (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bermicourt, I understand that you don't work your work deleted, but your !vote is counter-factual:
  1. False assertion: In terms of notability .... Reality: WP:NOTABILITY is a test applied to articles. This is not an article; it is a portal, for which the equivalent tests include breadth of topic.
    If Bermicourt wants to set aside the "broad topic" requirement of POG, he should open an RFC to propose the creation of a flood of narrow portals like the portalspammer TTH created last year.
  2. False assertion: Page views are irrelevant while the search engine fails to find them portals. Reality: this is a tedious piece of recurring nonsense, which portals fans should have dropped long ago. The search engine does find portals, if the user searches for portals. See this search for portals containing the word "Europe". If the user searches for articles, they get articles: not categories or talk page or Wikipedia pages or draft pages or templates or modules.
    If Bermicourt or anyone else wants to propose that a search for articles should return pages which are not articles, then WP:RFC is that away. If Bermicourt or anyone else wants to propose that the page view criterion should be dropped because search works as designed, then RFC is in the same direction.
  3. False assertion: even articles are not deleted for lack of page views. Reality: as DexDor noted in related discussion, articles contain unique content. Portals are navigation/showcasing tools, and are assessed on different criteria.
  4. False assertion: important economic, geographical and natural region. Reality: as clearly explained in the nomination, it has only 106 articles above start-class.
  5. False assertion: guidelines are neither fit for purpose ... nor authoritative as they are the subject of a current discussion. Reality: if and when an RFC amends or replaces the guidelines, we can use the new guideline. But the fact that Bermicourt and a few other defenders of failed portals don't like the guidelines being applied does not invalidate the guidance. That's a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance, especiially when it come sfrom the portal's creator.
  6. Maliciously false assertion: This proposal is just another part of the ongoing campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus.
    Reality:
    • Community consensus at WP:ENDPORTALS was not to delete the portal namespace. It was not a consensus to keep portals which clearly fail the guidelines. This old chestnut should have been dropped long ago.
    • This is not a campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals. Having discussed this with Bermicourt many times, he well knows that is not my aim at MFD, and he should not try to strengthen his case at MFD by misrepresenting me that way. Such dishonesty is uncivil WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.
      As I have stated many times, I am engaged in an ongoing effort to remove the junk which fails the commonsense parts of current guidelines and has accumulated over 13 years neglect of the portal namespace. An ultimate decision on the future of portals is needed, but deleting abandoned junk doesn't prejudice that decision. In the meantime if Bermicourt wants to advocate and end to the deletion of abandoned junk portals, he is free to open an RFC which should be called WP:KEEPJUNKPORTALS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. WP:POG states portals should be about: "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." This portal has one steady fan-maintainer, but it fails at least two other planks of POG. It is about an incredibly narrow topic (ex. the head article Ore Mountains had only 87 views per day from January-June 2019) and only has 5 readers a day, which is incredibly trivial, not the large numbers POG requires. A substantial portion of the views at that rate are just a background noise of accidental clicks by readers and maintenance/reviews by its creator. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence and common sense show the Ore Mountains are not a broad enough topic under WP:POG, nor does it attract large numbers of readers. It's just a recreation area for the creator.Newshunter12 (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral – This is a toy portal. It appears to fail the breadth of subject matter and readership tests but is well-maintained. It is really lack of maintenance that is the critical problem with most portals. It would be better to Move this toy portal to project space, but, in the absence of such an action, it can be ignored in portal space as useless but harmless. (Only unmaintained or broken portals are harmful.)Robert McClenon (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Lüneburg HeathEdit

Portal:Lüneburg Heath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Narrow topic, with trivially low readership.

The topic is the Lüneburg Heath, an area of heath, geest, and woodland in the northeastern part of the state of Lower Saxony in northern Germany.

This portal uses the mega-navbox format which its creator and diligent maintainer Bermicourt has imported from the German-language Wikipedia. I personally think that this is a vastly superior format to the predominant one-at-a-time "selected article" style of navbox, but sadly readers seem no more interested in reading this superior type of portal than the horrible old purge-for-new-selection format.

However, this portal clearly fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". It fails on two of the three counts:

  1.  N Broad topic. Clear fail, because this is a very narrow topic. Category:Lüneburg Heath + subcats contains a total of only 147 unique articles, of whch only 114 are non-stubs. Uisng AWB for analysis, I found that 100 of those 114 articles are start-class. That leaves only 14 articles above start-class, which fails the POG reuirement that "The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section".
  2.  N High readership. Clear fail. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 5 views per day is trivially low. At this level, the background noise of editors checking and maintaining the page forms a significant part of the total readership.
  3.  ?? Lots of of maintainers. The portal's history shows that most of the maintenance has been done by the creator Bermicourt. However, Bermicourt works to very high standards of diligence and accuracy, so I don't count that against the portal.

The portal includes a useful "Articles to be added" section, and much of the rest would make an excellent basis for navboxes, so I would happily support moving the portal to the appropriate WikiProject, which is probably WikiProject Germany.

Bermicourt has indicated elsewhere (e.g. at MFD:Portal:Eifel) that portals such as this are primarily intended to assist editors rather than readers. This conflicts with WP:PORTAL, which says that " Portals are meant primarily for readers". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment to User:BrownHairedGirl – The interior of a portal is a black box. Readers don't see whether it is using the old design with forked subpages or the newer superior mega-navbox design. They see a portal. The design improvement makes the portal more accurate and has other advantages in the long run, but the readers don't notice. (They do notice if a portal has incorrect information on a head of government).Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question for User:Bermicourt – If this is primarily for editors and not for readers, why not move it into project space? Portals are reader-facing.Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as the grounds for deletion are narrow, irrelevant and not universally accepted. The guidelines are neither fit for purpose - being over a decade out of date - nor authoritative as they are the subject of a current discussion. Page views are irrelevant while the search engine fails to find them portals and so are no more valid for portals than for categories. Portals are not set up as articles; they are navigation and project tools. And even articles are not deleted for lack of page views. In terms of notability, this is an important geographical, cultural and natural region, famous not least for where the Allies took the surrender at the end of WW2. This proposals is just another part of the ongoing campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus and related ongoing attempts to agree new and more up to date guidelines. Bermicourt (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bermicourt, I understand that you don't work your work deleted, but your !vote is counter-factual:
  1. False assertion: In terms of notability .... Reality: WP:NOTABILITY is a test applied to articles. This is not an article; it is a portal, for which the equivalent tests include breadth of topic.
    If Bermicourt wants to set aside the "broad topic" requirement of POG, he should open an RFC to propose the creation of a flood of narrow portals like the portalspammer TTH created last year.
  2. False assertion: Page views are irrelevant while the search engine fails to find them portals. Reality: this is a tedious piece of recurring nonsense, which portals fans should have dropped long ago. The search engine does find portals, if the user searches for portals. See this search for portals containing the word "Europe". If the user searches for articles, they get articles: not categories or talk page or Wikipedia pages or draft pages or templates or modules.
    If Bermicourt or anyone else wants to propose that a search for articles should return pages which are not articles, then WP:RFC is that away. If Bermicourt or anyone else wants to propose that the page view criterion should be dropped because search works as designed, then RFC is in the same direction.
  3. False assertion: even articles are not deleted for lack of page views. Reality: as DexDor noted elsewhere, articles contain unique content. Portals are navigation/showcasing tools, and are assessed on different criteria.
  4. False assertion: an important geographical, cultural and natural region. Reality: as clearly explained in the nomination, it has only 14 articles above start-class. Fourteen is barely enough for a skinny navbox.
  5. False assertion: guidelines are neither fit for purpose ... nor authoritative as they are the subject of a current discussion. Reality: if and when an RFC amends or replaces the guidelines, we can use the new guideline. But the fact that Bermicourt and a few other defenders of failed portals don't like the guidelines being applied does not invalidate the guidance. That's a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance.
  6. Maliciously false assertion: This proposal is just another part of the ongoing campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus.
    Reality:
    • Community consensus at WP:ENDPORTALS was not to delete the portal namespace. It was not a consensus to keep portals which clearly fail the guidelines.
    • This is not a campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals. Having discussed this with Bermicourt many times, he well knows that is not my aim at MFD, and he should not try to strengthen his case at MFD by misrepresenting me that way. Such dishonesty is uncivil WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.
      As I have stated many times, I am engaged in an ongoing effort to remove the junk which fails the commonsense parts of current guidelines and has accumulated over 13 years neglect of the portal namespace. An ultimate decision on the future of portals is needed, but deleting abandoned junk doesn't prejudice that decision. In the meantime if Bermicourt wants to advocate and end to the deletion of abandoned junk portals, he is free to open an RFC which should be called WP:KEEPJUNKPORTALS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. WP:POG states portals should be about: "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." This portal has one steady fan-maintainer, but it fails at least two other planks of POG. It is about an incredibly narrow topic (ex. the head article Lüneburg Heath had only 73 views per day from January-June 2019) and only has 5 readers a day, which is incredibly trivial, not the large numbers POG requires. Views at that rate are just background noise of accidental clicks by readers and maintenance/reviews by its creator. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence and common sense show Lüneburg Heath is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG, nor does it attract large numbers of readers. It's just the creator's personal WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral – This is a toy portal. It appears to fail the breadth of subject matter and readership tests but is well-maintained. It is really lack of maintenance that is the critical problem with most portals. It would be better to Move this toy portal to project space, but, in the absence of such an action, it can be ignored in portal space as useless but harmless. (Only unmaintained or broken portals are harmful.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:EifelEdit

Portal:Eifel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Narrow topic, trivially low readership.

This portal is about the Eifel mountain range on border of Germany and Belgium. 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 small mountainy area fails the broadness test, and the January–June 2019 average of only 4 views per day is trivially low.

This portal uses the mega-navbox format which its creator and diligent maintainer Bermicourt has imported from the German-language Wikipedia. I personally think that this is a vastly superior format to the predominant one-at-a-time "selected article" style of navbox, but sadly readers seem no more interested in reading this superior type of portal than the horrible old purge-for-new-selection format.

The portal includes the list of Portal:Eifel/Wanted Articles, which has obvious value for editors, and should be moved to the appropriate WikiProject, which is probably WikiProject Germany. The rest of it should be either deleted, or moved to project space if anyone wants to retain it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong keep as the grounds for deletion are narrow, irrelevant and not universally accepted. Even the guidelines - which are over a decade out of date - do not refer to readership and, in any case, they are no more valid for portals than for categories. Portals are not articles; they are navigation and project tools. And even articles are not deleted for lack of page views. In terms of notability, the Eifel is a major mountain range straddling 3 countries and over which major battles have been fought. It is a geographical, cultural and historical region of great significance as well as a major natural region. This is just part of the ongoing campaign by some editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus and related attempts to agree new and more up to date guidelines. Bermicourt (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bermicourt WP:POG stands as the law of the land for portals whether any of us like it or not. If you want to change it, than start a successful RfC at the village pump. That some editors whine that POG has actual quality standards that must be met and want to keep every junk portal anyway means nothing, as has been proven repeatedly at MfD in the last six months. As already quoted by BrownHairedGirl, POG states portals must be about: "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." (emphasis mine). No guessing is needed. Over three years of hard data and common sense tell us Eifel is not a broad subject area under WP:POG and should be deleted.
Your glowing history synopsis on Eifel shows your vote to be what it is - pure WP:ILIKEIT, which is not surprising since you are the creator of this portal. The firm community consensus at hundreds of MfD's over the past six months is that portals failing any of WP:POG's broadness, readership, and maintainer guidelines are to be deleted, not kept. There has never been any consensus to keep every junk portal - there was simply a crude RfC if all portals should be deleted in one go, that was rejected, and has been repeatedly misused by some editors as an excuse to keep any portal no matter the facts. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Newshunter12 - The adoption of the portal guidelines in 2006 is challenged. If there are no portal guidelines, then we should Use Common Sense. This is a toy portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon Unless it becomes depreciated at some future point, WP:POG has been and remains the law of the land in portal space. You also shouldn't indulge those editors who whine about portals being held to actual standards by letting them keep crud or personal playpens. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Newshunter12 - We can take this discussion off-line from this MFD, but the status of the portal guidelines is being contested. I am not prepared to agree that the portal guidelines are the law of the land. I agree that it is sadly ironic that the portal guidelines were quoted incompletely by portal advocates to justify the creation of portals until portal utilitarians began reading and parsing the guidelines more effectively, and now the portal advocates are saying to discard them. If they are not the law of the land, then we should use common sense. My common sense says that toy portals are useless but harmless. If the portal guidelines are still in effect, I still think that properly maintained toy portals are useless but harmless. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Maintained Portal of a broad subject area. Agathoclea (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Agathoclea Your vote is underpinned by nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT, which is not surprising considering you are a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Germany. This portal has only 4 views per day, an incredibly trivial number, and its head article Eifel is so narrow it has only 140 views per day from January-June 2019). POG states portals must be about: "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." (emphasis mine). No guessing is needed. Over three years of hard data and common sense tell us Eifel is not a broad subject area under WP:POG and should be deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. WP:POG states portals should be about: "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." This portal has one steady fan-maintainer, but it fails at least two other planks of POG. It is about a very narrow topic (ex. the head article Eifel had only 140 views per day from January-June 2019) and only has 4 readers a day, which is incredibly trivial, not the large numbers POG requires. I oppose re-creation, as three years of hard evidence and common sense show Eifel is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG, nor does it attract large numbers of readers. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment. We all think our own opinion is common sense, but all you've done is reiterate old POG guidelines from the infancy of Wikipedia because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Why would portals bother you - they're barely visible from mainspace? Which kinda explains the low pageviews - they aren't articles for readers. And BTW if you imposed the same pageview criterion on articles; many of them would also disappear. Bermicourt (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Reply. @Bermicourt, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. The fact is that WP:POG is the current guideline. If you want to propose that it be deprecated or replaced, then you know where WP:RFC is, but unless and until some change is agreed, POG stands.
It is deeply dishonest to accuse another editor of "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT" because they uphold the current guideline. Please strike that comment.
I note with great interest that portals they aren't articles for readers. If this page has not been built for readers, then it should be in portal space, because per WP:Portal, " Portals are meant primarily for readers", which is why they are linked from articles. If this one is not intended for readers, then it is thoroughly perverse for you to object to it being moved to project space as I proposed in the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • keep, well done portal, maintained, not causing any embarrassment to Wikipedia. Number of page views is not an argument for deletion. Should the discussion end up as "delete", a better alternative would be to move to subpages of WikiProject Germany to continue to use the excellent list of red links. No advantage of deleting this portal over keeping it has been demonstrated. —Kusma (t·c) 10:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Kusma, your assertion about pageview is factually wrong. 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 portal fails that test on two criteria: lack of breadth and lack of readers. The closer should therefore discount Your !vote as unfounded in the guidelines.
It is also a pity that you seem to have overlooked that the nomination explicitly advocates moving Portal:Eifel/Wanted Articles to project space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
The closer should note that you are badgering everybody who has a different opinion from yours, and that you are actively preventing WP:POG from being improved to conform to actual reality (I tried to insert something about actual maintenance, but you reverted to the version asking for likely maintainers and likely pageviews only, in contrast to your nomination statement that seems to be based on actual pageviews). I will unwatch this page now and would prefer if you do not ping me, as arguing with you is significantly decreasing my enjoyment of Wikipedia, and seems to be completely pointless as you do not seem to be interested in anything but steamrolling the opposition with your pre-made opinion. —Kusma (t·c) 16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kusma, I will ping you, because I want to ask you to please not misrepresent reality. You well know that I have opposed your undiscussed and unilateral edits to the guidelines, and asked you to discuss your proposed changes and seek consensus before implementing them. If you have a problem with WP:BRD and.or WP:CONSENSUS, please start an RFC change them ... but until then, your position amounts to a desire to apply your own unilateral rewrite of the guidelines, rather than the actual guidelines which are in use. That unilateralism is an attempt by you at what you call steamrolling the opposition, so your attempt to pin that label on me is an uncivil piece of projection.
I have no desire to decrease your enjoyment of Wikipedia, but I will not refrain from challenging XFD !votes which are based on a rejection of established guidelines. If your enjoyment of Wikipedia is diminished by your unwillingness to seek consensus, then only you can remedy that situation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per above arguments. Actively maintained portal. I'm not convinced by arguments pointing to low numbers of page-views. Many current Wikipedia articles would fail that criteria if we went based off of that.--WaltCip (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @WaltCip, this is not an article. It is a portal, which is not content a tool for navigating and/or showcasing content, and as such its long-standing guidelines at WP:POG require a broad topic, large readership and maintainers. Hundreds of portals have been deleted at MFD in recent months for failing those criteria, and your !vote simply ignores the established guidelines. It should therefore be discounted by the closer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Perhaps the established guidelines need to change?--WaltCip (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
        • @WaltCip, you are welcome to propose a change to the guidelines. But unless and until the guidelines are changed, the current guidelines stand, so you !vote is WP:ILIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
          • I call upon you to withdraw your assertion that my !vote is WP:ILIKEIT; I have said nothing of the sort regarding my opinion of the portal one way or another.--WaltCip (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see no net gain over the deletion of this maintained portal, I stand by my statement that WP:POG has several ongoing discussions on the talk-page and is currently disputed. I understand the rationale for deleting abandoned portals, there needs to be a consensus though on where the line is drawn. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Knowledgekid87, the reality is that WT:Portal/Guidelines has currently two or three active discussions in which the same few editors unsuccessfully push variants of the same basic proposition: to retain or re-create more of the unread and/or unmaintained and/or narrow topic portals which still count as too high a proportion of Category:All portals. If and when they gain consensus at an RFC for any of these proposals, we can assess portals against the new guidelines, but until then the guidelines stand, despite ongoing grumbles from one corner.
As to where to draw the lines, the January–June 2019 massviews places this portal at rank #763 out of 811. That is, it's in the bottom 6% by pageviews. It's also a very narrow topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment to User:BrownHairedGirl – The interior of a portal is a black box. Readers don't see whether it is using the old design with forked subpages or the newer superior mega-navbox design. They see a portal. The design improvement makes the portal more accurate and has other advantages in the long run, but the readers don't notice. (They do notice if a portal has incorrect information on a head of government).Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question for User:Bermicourt – If this is primarily for editors and not for readers, why not move it into project space? Portals are reader-facing.Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong delete -
     
    A(Portal:Germany) ⊆ B(Portal:Countries) and B ⊆ C(Portal:Geography), A set of three subportal levels. This is the number of subportals that makes sense.
    This is a narrow topic and not meet WP:POG. Per Wikipedia:The Problems with Portals Broad Subject Area Is Arbitrary, but some areas can be considered unquestionably narrow if we think that the consensus about the number of portals in wikipedia have been defined, and that number is less than ten thousand. When was this defined? When the creation of portals went beyond five thousand and portals began to be created for second level country divisions, especially Indian ones, and the community decided that this number of portals was too far from the function of the portals. Exponentially, wikiproject portal intended to create portals up to vital articles level 5, about ten thousand portals. And the topic in question is not even at the vital articles level 5. It may be questioned that some countries second level divisions are more vital than some countries (by their population, GDP, etc.) but portals are a navigation system and I see no sense in a navigation system that does not respect a logical hierarchical level. For example categories hierarchy, Category:California is below Category:GrenadaGuilherme Burn (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral – This is a toy portal. It appears to fail the breadth of subject matter and readership tests but is well-maintained. It is really lack of maintenance that is the critical problem with most portals. It would be better to Move this toy portal to project space, but, in the absence of such an action, it can be ignored in portal space as useless but harmless. (Only unmaintained or broken portals are harmful.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a note, you just made that essay less than 24 hours ago. In my opinion calling portals "toys" can be insulting to those who have put their efforts in maintaining them over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Final FantasyEdit

Portal:Final Fantasy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Narrow topic: the video game franchise Final Fantasy. Low readership of only an average of 8 views per day in January–June 2019.

The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Final Fantasy shows that most are wholly unchanged since creation in 2013, and the rest have only trivial edits.

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 at least two of the three counts:

  1.  N Broad topic. Clear fail.
  2.  N High readership. Clear fail. 8 views per day is trivial.
  3.  N Lots of of maintainers. Clear fail. Abandoned.

The head article Final Fantasy is a featured article. It's time to stop luring readers away our finest content to an abandoned page. Just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete - I was the last person to seriously work on this portal, back in 2013. Even at the time, it seemed to be too small in scope, but I edited heavily in the area so I gave it a go. Prior to me, the last serious work was when it was created in 2005. So, other than a brief 2-day punctuation by me 6 years ago, this has gone unmaintained, narrowly scoped, and unread for 14 years. Even if you support the idea of portals, this is pretty pointless. --PresN 04:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per 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 falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to abandoned junk. I also oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Final Fantasy is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl and concurrence of PresN. Low readership and no maintenance. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:JharkhandEdit

Portal:Jharkhand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Small portal on the Indian state of Jharkhand, abandoned since its creation in 2007, with low pageviews (in January–June 2019, it averaged only 9 views per day). Created in 2007, but its selected pages still only amount to a total of 13: 2 cities, 8 biographies and 3 articles, plus a single fake DYK. That's well short of the WP:POG minimum of 20 selected articles. And there is only one selected picture, so no rotation of images.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Jharkhand shows:

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 at least two of the three counts:

  1.  ?? Broad topic. Population of 32 million, but it is an under-developed state. The experience of data examined at many dozens of MFDs on geographical portals is that regions or cities with population under a million rarely achieve high levels or readership or maintainers, and that even in developed areas, several million is needed to get a decent chance of viability.
  2.  N High readership. Clear fail. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of 9 views per day is trivially low.
  3.  N Lots of of maintainers. Clear fail. Completely abandoned for 12 years.

WP:POG also guides that a "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest)[1] to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal."' But while WikiProject Jharkhand exists, its talkpage's history shows that it has never been active. So effectively there is no WikiProject to support the portal.

It's time to stop luring readers away from the well-maintained B-class head article Jharkhand to this foundling portal, which was abandoned at birth and fails 3 points of WP:POG. Just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, primarily because of an obvious lack of maintainers. The topic is broad enough for a portal. Picturing it as a state is a little misleading; it is theoretically a sub-national region, but it is more populous than 80% of all countries. But I'm not seeing enough time being put into keeping this viable, and I see no purpose being served by an abandoned portal. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per 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 falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to abandoned junk. I also oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Jharkhand is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I concur with the analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl. Too few articles, too little maintenance of the articles, too few readers. Perhaps we should not ask whether an area is a "broad subject area" a priori but should insist that breadth of the subject area means breadth of the selected articles (not of the range of articles for some future person to select). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Uttar PradeshEdit

Portal:Uttar Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal on the India state of Uttar Pradesh. It has low pageviews (an average of only 13 views per day in January–June 2019), but the crucial issue is that was abandoned in late 2011 and is now a broken mess of redlinks.

The portal was created in 2007, and built using the then-popular monthly-edition format. This involved creating for each month a new dated page for each of Selected article, Selected picture, Selected biography, and news.

This was sustained sporadically until late 2011, then stopped entirely. The precise point of cessation is hard to determine without a lot of burrowing, because a complete set of blank pages was created up to December 2011, and in the final few years some pages got content on some months but not on others. See the listings at Portal:Uttar Pradesh/Selected biography/2011, Portal:Uttar Pradesh/Selected picture/2011, Portal:Uttar Pradesh/Selected article/2011.

The result is that Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Uttar Pradesh/ lists a daunting total of 640 sub-pages.

However they are not much use to the portal, because it looks for the current month ... and Portal:Uttar Pradesh/Selected biography/2019/August, Portal:Uttar Pradesh/Selected picture/2019/August, Portal:Uttar Pradesh/Selected article/2019/August are all redlinks. So those boxes in the portal display only a redlink.

This is not readily fixable, because the archives consist of decade-old content forks. It would take a lot of work to convert this to a more modern excerpt-transclusion format, and for 8 years nobody has done that. The only relevant post on the talk page, was in June 2015 by User:25 Cents FC, who noted the abandonment and expressed a desire to make this a featured portal[11] ... but there was no respose, and User:25 Cents FC's sole portal-space edit was not to this portal/[12]

There is also a set of anniversary pages, one for every day of the year: see Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Uttar Pradesh/Anniversaries/. However, the set is of limited value, because a significant proportion of the pages just say "no event". For example Portal:Uttar Pradesh/Anniversaries/January has 14 "no event" days, and Portal:Uttar Pradesh/Anniversaries/February has 11 "no event days".

Given the long-term neglect, it is unsurprising that in February 2019‎ @The Transhumanist (TTH) chose it as one of his portals to "restart" in an automated format.[13] However, that just made it an automated redundant fork of the navbox Template:Uttar Pradesh, like the 2550 newly-created portals deleted by overwhelming consensus in two mass deletions (one, and two).

So in May 2019 I (BHG) reverted[14] the portal to the last non-automated version.

And so it remains, as broken as it was in January 2012, but with Portal:Uttar Pradesh/Uttar Pradesh news (last updated in 2011) still displayed but now even more out of date.

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 at least two of the three counts:

  1.  Y Broad topic. On a theoretical level, yes. With 200 million inhabitants Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state in India as well as the most populous country subdivision in the world. OTOH, the evidence from hundreds of portal MFDs in recent months is that sub-national regional portals rarely thrive.
  2.  N High readership. Clear fail. An average of only 13 views per day in January–June 2019, which is a slight decline on the 2015–2018 average of 14 views per day
  3.  N Lots of of maintainers. Clear fail. Abandoned since 2012.

Additionally, WP:POG 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." But WikiProject Uttar Pradesh is inactive, so there is effectively no available WikiProject.

So this abandoned and broken portal fails WP:POG on three crucial points: low readership, no maintainers, and no active WikiProject to support it. Time to just delete it ... with prejudice against re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. I get the argument about a lack of maintainers; it's one I've supported elsewhere. But we're talking her about a region which, if it were a country, would be the sixth most populous in the world. Unlike Portal:Jharkhand, this is for a region with a long, long, recorded history, and massive cultural and political influence. There's enough content within its scope that it could almost be left to run itself, if someone does a little tidying of the format. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde Broadness in practical terms and broadness under WP:POG are two very different things. As countless other MfD's have shown, sub-national regions very rarely meet the guidelines of POG and BHG explained how Uttar Pradesh crashes and burns when it tries to clear the guidelines, which aren't optional. The GA-Class head article Utter Pradesh got 5157 views per day from Jan-Jun 2019, while this portal got 11. The head article also has multiple versatile navboxes. Readers are already getting excellent and comprehensive Uttar Pradesh coverage elsewhere, save the poor souls that get lured to this abandoned junk. Portals do not have their own content and are only useful for their utility, and that even something as vast as Uttar Pradesh has a crud portal speaks to how portals in general are a failure. This portal is a failed solution in search of a problem. Please reconsider your vote. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per 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 falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to abandoned junk, and has rotted for a decade, though like a flickering light bulb, it's hard to pin down when exactly it flamed out. The GA-Class head article Uttar Pradesh got 5157 views per day from Jan-Jun 2019 and has several versatile navboxes, while this portal got 11 views a day and has been abandoned for a decade. This portal is a failed solution in search of a problem. I also oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Uttar Pradesh is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl, without prejudice to re-creation using an improved design that does not rely on subpages. "Tidying of the format" is not what is required. There is plenty of content, but what has been created is a tangled forest that needs to be removed with fire. If someone wants to create a mega-navbox-style portal, that would be better than trying to fix this mess. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment to Closer - If closing as Delete, please indicate what the consensus is on possible re-creation (since there is disagreement). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

August 20, 2019Edit

Portal:New FranceEdit

Portal:New France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old portal I no longer maintained (i was the only one that really ever did anything with it) and with the fact most portals are not seen by the majority of readers (60 percent drop in views since 2012) really only need the main country portal.....that is being fixed for mobile views. Moxy 🍁 20:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nominator. See the table:
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline
Acadia 15 810 54.00 1.85% Originator edits sporadically. No maintenance since 2012. 8 17 daily pageviews in French. Jan19-Jun19
New France 21 1080 51.43 1.94% Originator inactive since 2016. Minimal maintenance since 2010. 22 Jan19-Jun19
History of Canada 34 1123 33.03 3.03% Only very minor maintenance since 2010. 14 Jan19-Jun19
France 83 12266 147.78 0.68% Originator edits sporadically. Last maintained in 2014. 20 Jan19-Jun19

Any re-creation should only be via Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unmaintained portals fail WP:POG, and are a nuisance to readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom and the analysis done by Robert McClenon+BrownHairedGirl. This junk portal has been abandoned for almost nine years. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows New France is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:OttawaEdit

Portal:Ottawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old portal I created that is no longer maintained and with the fact most portals are not seen by the majority of readers (60 percent drop in views since 2012) really only need the main country portal.....that is being fixed for mobile views. Moxy 🍁 20:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over nine years, save for two DYK's added in 2010 and a few panoramas nearly as long ago, and was never completed, which is why its sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials. The biography on Barbara Ann Scott, last edited in 2013, has failed to reflect her 2012 death for nearly seven years.
The portal clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had nearly a decade of no maintainers and it had a very low 11 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (despite the head article Ottawa having 2634 views per day in the same period.) Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Ottawa is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator/originator and User:Newshunter12. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a long-abandoned mini-portal. I checked the sub-pages, and verified the abandonment. Note that Portal:Ottawa/Selected biography/5 is about Barbara Ann Scott, who died in 2012 ... but seven years later the portal considers her still alive.
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 has attracted only trivially small numbers of readers, and no maintainers.
We should stop luring readers away from well-maintained articles to abandoned portals which serve skimpy sets of outdated info to the readers.
I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete cities don't need portals.Catfurball (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Indigenous peoples of CanadaEdit

Portal:Indigenous peoples of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old portal I created that is no longer maintained and with the fact most portals are not seen by the majority of readers (60 percent drop in views since 2012) really only need the main country portal.....that is being fixed for mobile views. Moxy 🍁 20:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over nine years, save for one-off updating by passing editors this year and in 2018. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had nearly a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 11 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Indigenous peoples of Canada had 995 views per day in the same period. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows the Indigenous peoples of Canada are not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Moxy and User:Newshunter12. Neglected portal. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:History of CanadaEdit

Portal:History of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old portal I created that is no longer maintained and with the fact most portals are not seen by the majority of readers (60 percent drop in views since 2012) really only need the main country portal.....that is being fixed for mobile views. Moxy 🍁 20:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nominator. Viewing is better than some, but there is no maintenance. See the table:
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline
Acadia 15 810 54.00 1.85% Originator edits sporadically. No maintenance since 2012. 8 17 daily pageviews in French. Jan19-Jun19
New France 21 1080 51.43 1.94% Originator inactive since 2016. Minimal maintenance since 2010. 22 Jan19-Jun19
History of Canada 34 1123 33.03 3.03% Only very minor maintenance since 2010. 14 Jan19-Jun19
France 83 12266 147.78 0.68% Originator edits sporadically. Last maintained in 2014. 20 Jan19-Jun19

Any re-creation should only be via Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Page views are a bit better here because the inline version of the portal is used in articles so all our readers see it. Pages views really not a good determination of the portals quality but it seems the norm here..--Moxy 🍁 01:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom and the analysis done by Robert McClenon. This portal has been essentially abandoned for over nine years, and was never completed, which is why all its sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows the history of Canada is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Geography of CanadaEdit

Portal:Geography of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old portal I created that is no longer maintained and with the fact most portals are not seen by the majority of readers (60 percent drop in views since 2012) really only need the main country portal.....that is being fixed for mobile views. Moxy 🍁 20:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over nine years, save for a handful of small one off updates by passing editors over the years, and was never completed, which is why its sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had nearly a decade of no maintainers and it had a very low 18 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows the geography of Canada is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Moxy and NH12. Very little maintenance since 2010. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Music of CanadaEdit

Portal:Music of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old portal I created that is no longer maintained and with the fact most portals are not seen by the majority of readers really only need the main country one..that is being fixed for mobile views Moxy 🍁 20:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over eight years and was never completed, which is why all its sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had nearly a decade of no maintainers and it had a very low 16 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows the music of Canada is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned a few times over the past months.....the red links in the sub pages are there to help facilitate further additions.... they are not in the rotation of the complete. .. yet abandoned portal.--Moxy 🍁 03:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The red links were added to be utilized, but they never were, which is worth mentioning. It shows the portal was never completed or reached its intended potential. A well-maintained or well-built portal would never need red-links sitting around its sub-pages for many years. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Moxy and NH12. Little maintenance since 2011 except tweaks. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Consumer DemocracyEdit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Consumer Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Proposal from a WP:SPA that vios. WP:NOT. There is no value to keeping this page in the project space. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Roki VulovićEdit

Draft:Roki Vulović (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Much as I'd like to see this page on the wiki, multiple AfD discussions have shown that the subject of the article fails notability, even after searches for sources, and possibly verifiability. Therefore, this draft if moved into mainspace would meet the same fate. If anyone can find sources/rationale to keep this subject on the wiki, I would love to be proven wrong. --PrussianOwl (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the clear consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodoljub Vulović (3rd nomination). Interested editors should consider improving the still unsourced cs:Rodoljub Roki Vulović or ru:Вулович, Родолюб, which would be deleted at en.wikipedia as PROMOTION with no reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom and SmokeyJoe. This draft is useless and never going to constructively enter main space. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt - Three AFDs is more than enough. I will note that User:SmokeyJoe has a strict standard for deletion of drafts (is tolerant of marginal drafts) and will concur with his reasoning. Some of the editors at the AFDs recommended Salt. Salt with ECP in both draft and article space to permit an experienced neutral editor to write an article if appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • MfD doesn’t examine notability, but if AfD *already* has deleted it, with a clear consensus, and the draft shows no sign of overcoming the AfD reasons for deletion, then the AfD should be respected. Counterintuitively, the number of AfDs does not increase the case for deletion as multi AfDs may mean unclear AfD consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:GenevaEdit

Portal:Geneva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned, low-readership mini-portal on the Swiss city of Geneva. Created in 2011, but still only 5 selected articles, all textually unchanged since 2011. Multiple failures of WP:POG.

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 each of three three tests:

  1.  N Broad topic. The portals' intro makes it explicitly about city of Geneva, which has a population of only 200,000. Including the suburbs brings the tally to 500,000. Even the broader agglomération du Grand Genève (which includes part of France) has a population of less than a million. The experience of data examined at many dozens of MFDs on geographical portals is that regions or cities with population under a million rarely achieve high levels or readership or maintainers, and that several million is needed to get a decent chance of viability.
  2.  N High readership. Clear fail. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 10 views per day is trivially low.
  3.  N Lots of of maintainers. Clear fail. The minimal level of content is unchanged 2011, apart from formatting in 2013

Additionally, note that WP:POG guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest)[1] to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal." There is no WikiProject Geneva, so no group of editors focused on the portal topic.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Geneva shows a modest set of sub-pages, but it is misleading, because 9 of the "selected foo" pages ate blanks, presumbaly created to fcailitae an expansion which never happened: Portal:Geneva/Selected picture/7, /8, /9, /10, plus Portal:Geneva/Selected article/6, /7, /8, /9, /10.

The pages with actual content are Portal:Geneva/Selected article/1, /2, /3, /4, and /5. Each of them was created in 2011, and since then each of them has been edited only to wrap them in a template.

The portal was created in May 2011‎ by WhisperToMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and in this case, WhisperToMe did not maintain it. Their last edits to any portal were in December 2011[15]. I will AGF that WhisperToMe was unaware of guidance, but portals do need maintenance, and this one has not been maintained.

I also oppose recreation. The evidence of the last 8 years is crystal-clear that editors don't want to maintain this portal. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per 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 falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to abandoned junk. I also oppose re-creation, as eight years of hard evidence shows Geneva is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, with thanks for the analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl. Too few articles, too few readers, too little maintenance (none is too little). There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

August 19, 2019Edit

Portal:Solar SystemEdit

Portal:Solar System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal. The 30 selected articles in the rotation date from April 2007 through January 2011. Aside from some updates in May 2007, some persistent vandalism and a decent amount of image updates, these entries have remained as they were on the day they were created. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Mark, is there evidence of abandonment (e.g. vandalism going unreverted for a long time, important updates not made)? DexDor (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. A list:

Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, there are periodic edits, with an active history page and an average 68 readers a day (readers who likely gained knowledge and in-site direction from their experience with the page). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn You said you were new to portals elsewhere, so to bring you up to speed, any time you see a portal edit anywhere by 'The Transhumanist' you should disregard them. They are a portal spammer who created literally thousands of junk portals using automated software that had to be deleted at two mass MfD's earlier this year at great expense of editor time and tried to unilaterally change basically every existing portal into automated junk. Their edits mean nothing of value, and when you remove that, vandalism, and link/template changes, portals like this have rotted for years. When the very well maintained head article Solar System (it has Featured Article status) gets well over 14,000 views a day, what good is an outdated junk portal with almost no views really doing? Portals are not main space and do not have their own content - they are mere navigational devices. Everything here can be found in the head article, its versatile navbox, etc. Please reconsider your votes here and elsewhere. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not actually new to portals, I just don't edit them regularly. 68 views a day isn't "almost no views", that's quite a lot of views over time, and a huge amount of views over more time. Portals are a navigation device, and this one is fine, educational, and gives links that readers may not easily find elsewhere. There is no need to delete this useful and interesting page. Since the portals about the Solar System, Moon, Mars, Jupiter and who knows what other swaths of the Milky Way have been put into the extinction zone, the nominators should notify the space and other appropriate wikiprojects about this deletion request. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikiprojects that have tagged the portal automatically have this MFD shown in their article alerts. I see that one of the portal enthusiasts has (and had at the time of your comment) also put notices on wikiproject talk pages (which doesn't usually get much response). DexDor (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over eight years. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over eight years of no maintainers and it had a low 61 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Solar System had 14,410 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows the Solar System is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Move (without redirect) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System/Portal. It looks OK, but is not a useful reader navigation tool. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is about a very broad subject area with a large scope of articles. The view numbers are higher than most portals. The complaints about it above are not backed up by any guideline. The demand for a certain pageview number from the people behind the mass deletion seems to increase as the number of remaining portals decreases. POG just states a portal needs to be "likely to attract large numbers of readers", which is subjective at best. And nowhere in the guideline does it state that pageviews should be compared to articles. But if I need to make a case for it, it seems this portal has large numbers of readers for a portal. It has way more readers than the associated category as well. Given the large scope, it has the potential (likelihood) to garner more viewers than it already does. In regards to utility: The news section is useful, just like the offered navigation to basic solar system articles. I do not think this portal is particularly outdated, the selected articles can be fixed in 5 minutes, but...
I would be willing to update this portal periodically and expand it in time. Which I guess makes me a maintainer. --Hecato (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Hecato your vote is pure WP:ILIKEIT, not policy based, nor does it even try to link to supportive policies that we keep junk portals no matter what because there are none. We don't keep anything on Wikipedia based on WP:CRYSTALBALL that like mana falling from heaven, readers and maintainers might just appear one day. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, and this one falls flat. One off maintenance means nothing. This junk portal has been abandoned for over eight years. It also has low page views, which you are trying to mask using the abysmal view rate of portals in general. You also purposefully misquoted POG. WP:POG requires portals be about: "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." No guess work is needed. Over eight years of hard data show readers and maintainers don't want this narrow portal (being broad in a literal sense means nothing here), which should be deleted per WP:POG, not kept because some want portals for everything. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Topic is broad, there are viewers, there is a maintainer. POG is fulfilled. If you think all portals should be deleted because they all have low view numbers then start another RfC. If 99% of portals fail your interpretation of POG then the problem might be with your interpretation and not with 99% of portals. --Hecato (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
None of what you said is true, as I have already explained. I will add that being broad in a literal sense and being broad under WP:POG are not at all the same thing. WP:POG isn't built around literal broadness or how interesting a topic is. Neither of those factors matter under POG. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I have a question for the Delete editors, and two questions for the Keep editors. For the Delete editors, is this portal doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information? For the Keep voters, has any last-minute editing addressed the concerns of the Delete editors that this portal is not being maintained and is not likely to be maintained in the future? For the Keep voters, what is the actual value of this portal, as opposed to that of the head article and the related articles? What is the portal actually doing (and has it been doing it for the months or years that it has been neglected)?

The following table compares planetary and solar system portals:

Table
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Baseline Comments Notes Articles Ratio Percent
Outer space 13 1254 Jan19-Jun19 Portal has long history of renaming 96.46 1.04%
Jupiter 16 5908 Jan19-Feb19 Originator inactive since 2011. Last tweaks 2017. 17 articles and 8 bios, all selected in 2011. A navbox would serve the purpose. 25 369.25 0.27%
Mars 31 6496 Jan19-Feb19 Originator inactive since 2015. No maintenance since 2011. 9 209.55 0.48%
Stars 34 3021 Jan19-Feb19 Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2015. 44 88.85 1.13%
Moon 37 7516 Jan19-Feb19 Last maintenance 2014. 14 203.14 0.49%
Solar System 65 6496 Jan19-Feb19 Originator last edited in 2007. Last maintenance 2011; news appears to be up to date, but that is view of Wikinews. 30 99.94 1.00%
  • If you read my Keep !vote, I offered to maintain this portal beyond "drive-by edits" as you call it. Your question about the usefulness of this portal appears to be a question about the usefulness of portals in general which is misplaced in this MfD, take that to the POG talk page or the recent RfCs about the matter. --Hecato (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, just noticed you copypasted this everywhere. --Hecato (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon Yes, this portal is harming readers. For example, the entry for Europa says nothing about the water vapor plumes Hubble discerned erupting off the surface of this moon, the important work the spacecraft Juno is presently doing with Europa, or the upcoming Europa clipper mission, all sourced from NASA. Instead, it wastes readers' time by talking about an orbiter project canceled in 2005. The nom, Mark, also provided other examples above. I don't have time to do this with every page on this junk portal and hope this is proof enough that when things are left to rot for a decade, unsurprisingly, they rot. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Semi-automating a portal is not a way to avoid requiring maintainers for portals, which still require regular hands on maintenance to be worthwhile for readers. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this portal on another world or worlds, without prejudice to a new portal using a design that does not rely on forked subpages. The comments by User:Newshunter12 and User:Mark Schierbecker are cogent. In an area where knowledge is expanding as rapidly as the astronomy of the solar system, mostly via robotic exploration, providing links to copies of obsolete content forks is harmful and is inferior to allowing readers to view the articles, which are being updated to reflect discoveries. Portals for areas as broad as other worlds are desirable, but not these portals that contain obsolete information. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep this portal is needed if the planet portals are deleted.Catfurball (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Catfurball I understand and respect your reasoning in wanting to keep this particular portal, but I believe it is misguided. The featured articles Moon, Mars, Jupiter, and Solar System collectively had 36,277 views per day from January 1 - June 30 2019, while their four respective portals, all abandoned for over eight years, had 138 views per day in the same period. This dichotomy illustrates the reality that portals in general, and certainly these astronomy themed portals, are a failed solution in search of a problem. These four add nothing of value to studying astronomy on Wikipedia. The astronomy section on Wikipedia is much better off without the burden of junk portals luring readers away from the best content on Wikipedia to abandoned crud. Please reconsider your vote. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe the deleters have misunderstood the purpose of the portals. I can supply an example of how a likely student would search Wikipedia for information and miss the portals completely! But, the portals serve those who seek out specific sciences! Cheers! --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Marshallsumter There is no misunderstanding by delete voters. This junk portal has been abandoned for over eight years and gets only 61 views per day, while the Featured Article Solar System gets well over 14,000 views a day and is equipped with multiple rich and versatile navboxes for all things astronomy related in our Solar System and beyond. Why would we want to divert students and other readers away from our best content to an abandoned portal? This junk portal is a failed solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Marshallsumter, please explain how "the portals serve those who seek out specific sciences". DexDor (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral. If this portal is changed to (or replaced by) a portal that doesn't content fork old article text and there are editors interested in the topic who will maintain it (especially if portals on individual planets etc are deleted so editor time isn't spread across so many portals) then this could be kept. However I still see portals (in general) as a solution without a problem and a net negative in building/maintaining an encyclopedia; the onus should be on proponents of portals to identify what benefits they might provide to readers. DexDor (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I offered to maintain it above. My maintenance would, among other things, involve replacing outdated content forks. Cheers, Hecato (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:MoonEdit

Portal:Moon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn portal. All selected articles were created between December 2010 and August 2011. None were updated. Both DYK sets were created in 2010 and never updated. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over eight years, save for pictures added in 2014, most of which aren't viewable. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over eight years of no maintainers and it had a very low 31 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Moon had 10,708 views per day in the same period). The head article, which is a Featured Article, also has a detailed and versatile set of navboxs, so this portal is a failed solution in search of a problem. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows the Moon is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and will watch the discusssion. There is activity in the history including updates and reversion of vandals, so there are maintainers. And 31 viewers a day is a fine group of readers who view the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I have a question for the Delete editors, and two questions for the Keep editors. For the Delete editors, is this portal doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information? For the Keep voters, has any last-minute editing addressed the concerns of the Delete editors that this portal is not being maintained and is not likely to be maintained in the future? For the Keep voters, what is the actual value of this portal, as opposed to that of the head article and the related articles? What is the portal actually doing (and has it been doing it for the months or years that it has been neglected)?

The following table compares planetary and solar system portals:

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Baseline Comments Notes Articles Ratio Percent
Outer space 13 1254 Jan19-Jun19 Portal has long history of renaming 96.46 1.04%
Jupiter 16 5908 Jan19-Feb19 Originator inactive since 2011. Last tweaks 2017. 17 articles and 8 bios, all selected in 2011. A navbox would serve the purpose. 25 369.25 0.27%
Mars 31 6496 Jan19-Feb19 Originator inactive since 2015. No maintenance since 2011. 9 209.55 0.48%
Stars 34 3021 Jan19-Feb19 Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2015. 44 88.85 1.13%
Moon 37 7516 Jan19-Feb19 Last maintenance 2014. 14 203.14 0.49%
Solar System 65 6496 Jan19-Feb19 Originator last edited in 2007. Last maintenance 2011; news appears to be up to date, but that is view of Wikinews. 30 99.94 1.00%

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Yes, Robert, this long abandoned portal is doing a lot of harm to readers. For example, the Orion spacecraft news in the portal is dated to October 2010 and misses nearly nine years of this program and the delays it has had. It projects the first manned launch in 2016, yet as of 2019, it is projected to happen in 2022. The Featured Article Moon, with over 10,000 views a day from January - June 2019, is monumentally better for readers than this portal is. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not !voting yet, but here's what the portal has that its articles don't:
  • News section (updates automatically; most recent story is from earlier this month)
  • DYK section
  • 1st level category tree visibility
  • Display of all related featured content and good articles, with links to same
  • Link to collaboration locations. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian Nice try pretending that this portal is unique in any way besides being outdated junk, which is a characteristic many portals share.
  • Do a google search for news or pick up a newspaper.
  • DYK section of this portal all dates to 2010 and is acting as just WP:TRIVIA.
  • One click to access the category tree from any related article.
  • The best quality content is easily accessed through navbox links countless articles share with Moon.
  • Article talk pages have links to all related Wiki-Projects.
  • The Moon (a Featured Article with over 10,000 views per day compared to 31 for this portal) and related articles haven't been abandoned for over eight years like this portal has.
  • The head article, unlike this portal, is not a failed solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per User:Newshunter12, this portal on another world or worlds, without prejudice to a new portal using a design that does not rely on forked subpages. In an area where knowledge is expanding as rapidly as the astronomy of the solar system, mostly via robotic exploration, providing links to copies of obsolete content forks is harmful and is inferior to allowing readers to view the articles, which are being updated to reflect discoveries. Portals for areas as broad as other worlds are desirable, but not these portals that contain obsolete information. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this portal not needed.Catfurball (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe the deleters have misunderstood the purpose of the portals. I can supply an example of how a likely student would search Wikipedia for information and miss the portals completely! But, the portals serve those who seek out specific sciences! Cheers! --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Marshallsumter There is no misunderstanding by delete voters. This junk portal has been abandoned for over eight years and gets only 31 views per day, while the Featured Article Moon gets well over 10,000 views a day and is equipped with multiple rich and versatile navboxes for all things Moon and astronomy related in our Solar System. Why would we want to divert students and other readers away from our best content to an abandoned portal? This junk portal is a failed solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:JupiterEdit

Portal:Jupiter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn portal. All 17 never updated selected articles created from December 2010 through March 2011. Eight never-updated bios created from December 2010 through February 2011. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over eight years. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over eight years of no maintainers and it had a very low 17 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Jupiter had 5536 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Jupiter is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, the portal has been maintained (see History page), 20 views a day isn't low but shows a good steady reader interest level, and the link to any 'deletion discussion' is a red link so as of now this nomination isn't actively listed on the portal. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, the easiest way to update each selected article and selected bio is to replace what follows "|text=" with {{Transclude lead excerpt|article or bio title}}. But in the current post-Transhumanist period I have been reluctant to do it. If okay, I can do that now and await approval or disapproval. --Marshallsumter (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Go for it, anything to stop the deletions of portals about continents and planets (Asia and Mars are on the block too) not to mention...the Solar System! Randy Kryn (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Seriously? So quickly? And that's what all the fuss is about? Thanks. Maybe now this nom can be withdrawn. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wishful thinking. Semi-automating a portal is not a way to avoid requiring maintainers for portals, which still require regular hands on maintenance to be worthwhile for readers. This one has been abandoned for many years without maintainters and one-off maitnence doesn't make an editor a maintainer. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I have a question for the Delete editors, and two questions for the Keep editors. For the Delete editors, is this portal doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information? For the Keep voters, has any last-minute editing addressed the concerns of the Delete editors that this portal is not being maintained and is not likely to be maintained in the future? For the Keep voters, what is the actual value of this portal, as opposed to that of the head article and the related articles? What is the portal actually doing (and has it been doing it for the months or years that it has been neglected)?

The following table compares planetary and solar system portals:

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Baseline Comments Notes Articles Ratio Percent
Outer space 13 1254 Jan19-Jun19 Portal has long history of renaming 96.46 1.04%
Jupiter 16 5908 Jan19-Feb19 Originator inactive since 2011. Last tweaks 2017. 17 articles and 8 bios, all selected in 2011. A navbox would serve the purpose. 25 369.25 0.27%
Mars 31 6496 Jan19-Feb19 Originator inactive since 2015. No maintenance since 2011. 9 209.55 0.48%
Stars 34 3021 Jan19-Feb19 Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2015. 44 88.85 1.13%
Moon 37 7516 Jan19-Feb19 Last maintenance 2014. 14 203.14 0.49%
Solar System 65 6496 Jan19-Feb19 Originator last edited in 2007. Last maintenance 2011; news appears to be up to date, but that is view of Wikinews. 30 99.94 1.00%

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete this portal on another world or worlds, without prejudice to a new portal using a design that does not rely on forked subpages. In an area where knowledge is expanding as rapidly as the astronomy of the solar system, mostly via robotic exploration, providing links to copies of obsolete content forks is harmful and is inferior to allowing readers to view the articles, which are being updated to reflect discoveries. Portals for areas as broad as other worlds are desirable, but not these portals that contain obsolete information. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this portal not needed.Catfurball (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe the deleters have misunderstood the purpose of the portals. I can supply an example of how a likely student would search Wikipedia for information and miss the portals completely! But, the portals serve those who seek out specific sciences! Cheers! --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Marshallsumter There is no misunderstanding by delete voters. This junk portal has been abandoned for over eight years and gets only 17 views per day, while the Featured Article Jupiter gets over 5,500 views a day and is equipped with multiple rich and versatile navboxes for all things Jupiter and astronomy related in our Solar System. Why would we want to divert students and other readers away from our best content to an abandoned portal? This junk portal is a failed solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:MarsEdit

Portal:Mars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal. Two selected bios from 2010. There are currently seven selected articles in the rotation. Four are never-updated entries from 2007 and three are from 2010. There are also 17 articles out of the rotation from November 2007 to August 2010. I checked all and found no significant edit history. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over eight years. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over eight years of no maintainers and it had a very low 29 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Mars had 5622 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Mars is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep (there is no link to this nomination on the portal so as of now it's a null nomination), the portal has been maintained and watched, and 36 viewers a day is a good amount of readers who gain individually from coming to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a link from the deletion notice on the portal to this discussion. Sometimes a new XfD notice shows a link that is red, but still works; presumably this is a bug in Mediawiki. DexDor (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I have a question for the Delete editors, and two questions for the Keep editors. For the Delete editors, is this portal doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information? For the Keep voters, has any last-minute editing addressed the concerns of the Delete editors that this portal is not being maintained and is not likely to be maintained in the future? For the Keep voters, what is the actual value of this portal, as opposed to that of the head article and the related articles? What is the portal actually doing (and has it been doing it for the months or years that it has been neglected)?

The following table compares planetary and solar system portals:

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Baseline Comments Notes Articles Ratio Percent
Outer space 13 1254 Jan19-Jun19 Portal has long history of renaming 96.46 1.04%
Jupiter 16 5908 Jan19-Feb19 Originator inactive since 2011. Last tweaks 2017. 17 articles and 8 bios, all selected in 2011. A navbox would serve the purpose. 25 369.25 0.27%
Mars 31 6496 Jan19-Feb19 Originator inactive since 2015. No maintenance since 2011. 9 209.55 0.48%
Stars 34 3021 Jan19-Feb19 Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2015. 44 88.85 1.13%
Moon 37 7516 Jan19-Feb19 Last maintenance 2014. 14 203.14 0.49%
Solar System 65 6496 Jan19-Feb19 Originator last edited in 2007. Last maintenance 2011; news appears to be up to date, but that is view of Wikinews. 30 99.94 1.00%

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete this portal on another world or worlds, without prejudice to a new portal using a design that does not rely on forked subpages. In an area where knowledge is expanding as rapidly as the astronomy of the solar system, mostly via robotic exploration, providing links to copies of obsolete content forks is harmful and is inferior to allowing readers to view the articles, which are being updated to reflect discoveries. Portals for areas as broad as other worlds are desirable, but not these portals that contain obsolete information. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this portal not needed.Catfurball (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe the deleters have misunderstood the purpose of the portals. I can supply an example of how a likely student would search Wikipedia for information and miss the portals completely! But, the portals serve those who seek out specific sciences! Cheers! --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Marshallsumter There is no misunderstanding by delete voters. This junk portal has been abandoned for over eight years and gets only 29 views per day, while the Featured Article Mars gets well over 5,600 views a day and is equipped with multiple rich and versatile navboxes for all things Mars and astronomy related in our Solar System. Why would we want to divert students and other readers away from our best content to an abandoned portal? This junk portal is a failed solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is not well-maintained. The article Mars can explain it better. For the images, just use a gallery section. Nigos (t@lk Contribs) 06:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:EducationEdit

Portal:Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn portal. Eight never-edited selected articles carbon dated to 2006. Portal:Education/Selected_article/9 is from 2016. All six selected educator entries are from 2006. Seymour Papert entry is outdated. He died in 2016. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade, aside from stray edits to the main page. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over a decade of no steady maintainers and it had only 73 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Education had 10098 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Education is not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly a broad enough target to meet the WP:POG guideline. The issue on the Seymour Papert subpage took literally seconds to apply a permanent fix, so now the portal has a maintainer, too. The viewership is 73 per day over the six month period, two important words that were omitted above. Has a dedicated WikiProject, as recommended in the WP:POG guideline (though the nominator apparently sees no reason they deserved to be to talkpage notified). UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:UnitedStatesian is waving a dead rat as if to claim that the portal is free of rats. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    Wow, you came up with that just for me? And nope, I'm just showing how easy ridding it of the rest of the (current and future) rats would be. Beleive it or not, you could actually help! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of readers and portal maintainers. That is a three-part test. However, we have seen that arguing a priori that a subject area is broad does not necessarily result in broad portal coverage. This portal has 15 articles (less than 20) via content-forked subpages, which are a ratty design. Is there a plan to re-architect the portal and to expand its coverage? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a portal that is needed.Catfurball (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Human rightsEdit

Portal:Human rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn portal. Seven selected articles created in 2010, and one created in 2012. Six bios created in 2010 and never updated. Accordingly, the entry for Aung San Suu Kyi still says she's under house arrest. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – Not !voting at this time, but for the WP:READERS, I have updated the entry for Aung San Suu Kyi using a transclusion, to present up-to-date content (diff). North America1000 06:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over nine years, save for a one-off addition in 2012. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. That a biography for the famed Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi sat unchanged for over nine years even as her life and country changed enormously says it all about this junk portal. This portal has had over nine years of no steady maintainers and it had only 61 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Human Rights had 3553 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Human Rights are not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - Is User:Northamerica1000 waving a dead rat? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of readers and portal maintainers. That is a three-part test. However, we have seen that arguing a priori that a subject area is broad does not necessarily result in broad portal coverage. This portal has 13 articles (less than 20) via content-forked subpages. Is there a plan to re-architect the portal and to expand its coverage? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Royal Air ForceEdit

Portal:Royal Air Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn portal. Eight selected articles created in 2008/09. Never updated. Out of eight bios, only seven and eight were created in 2016 - the rest were from 2008/09 and never updated. The 14 selected aircraft were created in 2008 and last updated in 2009. Most Some of these aircraft are used by multiple air forces around the world, so it really doesn't make sense for them to be here. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for a decade (save for some limited updates in 2016) and was never completed, which is why its sub-pages are littered with around 140 red links to never added materials. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 13 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Royal Air Force had 2444 views per day in the same period). The C-Class head article has a very useful and versatile set of navboxes, making this portal a failed solution in search of a problem.
Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence shows the Royal Air Force is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I disagree with the last sentence of the nom ("Most of these aircraft are used by multiple air forces around the world, so it really doesn't make sense for them to be here."). Surely, if the portal creator/maintainer(s) decide that, for example, the A400M is important enough to the RAF to be shown on the portal then that other air forces also use that type is irrelevant. DexDor (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I misspoke and also forgot to elaborate. I meant to say that some of the entries showcased in the portal (e.g. Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, Panavia Tornado, Lockheed C-130 Hercules) have historical contexts in other countries. Accordingly, their entries have been modified to focus on their service in the RAF. See this entry about the C-17 and compare it to the C-17 article. The lifeboat of the aging portal system advocated by some portal preservationists is to replace the manual copy/subpage system with transclusions, which require less maintenance. This will not work for these entries. I also think it may be disappointing to some readers that the source article deals less closely with the RAF than one might expect after reading the RAF-centric blurb. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Good point. The portal is currently showing me a page saying "The Royal Air Force aircraft are in service with 22, 202, 203(R) and formerly with 78 Squadron." whereas the article says the RAF retired them in 2015. DexDor (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:British ArmyEdit

Portal:British Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn portal. Out of 10 selected articles, 10 units, 10 bios and 10 selected equipment, only Portal:British Army/Selected unit/4 has been added to since 2008. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade (save one very limited update in 2010) and never caught on. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over a decade of no maintainers and it had a very low 18 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article British Army had 2073 views per day in the same period). The head article has also been accessed at GA status and has a very useful and versatile set of navboxes, making this portal a failed solution in search of a problem. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows the British Army is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete it is indeed about a broad subject--a major army over many centuries. It gets about 7000 clocks a year so thousands of people actually use it. Rjensen (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rjensen There are very specific broadness measurements and other criteria in the not-optional WP:POG guideline. WP:POG states portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." No guess work is needed. Hundreds of similar abandoned portals have been deleted at MfD in the past six months, such as Portal:United States Army, Portal:United States Navy, Portal:Ottoman Empire, and Portal:Armenia. Over a decade of hard data shows few readers and no maintainers want this narrow portal (being broad in a literal sense or interesting mean nothing here). The GA-Class head article British Army and its set of versatile navboxes are far more useful to readers than this long abandoned junk portal. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks---i agree. Rjensen (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rjensen Glad we agree, but does that mean you will change your vote to delete this abandoned portal? Newshunter12 (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - The country portal is everything editors need to work on all topics related to this. There is no need for numerous narrow subportals with obsolete content.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:American Old WestEdit

Portal:American Old West (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Static micro-portal on the American frontier, abandoned since its 2017 creation with one selected article, one selected picture, and a page of 3 fake DYKs.

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 at least two counts:

  1. Narrow topic. I'm not sure how to assess the theoretical breadth of this topic.
  2. Low readership. The portal's daily average of only 13 views per day is trivially low.
  3. Lack of maitainers. After two years, nobody has ever bothered to give this portal any selection of topics.

Created on 16 April 2017‎ by Drown Soda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), whose last contribution to the portal was the following day, whose last contribution to the portal was 3 hours and 7 minutes later, in the early hours of the 17th.[16] Since 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Drown Soda. Sadly, it has also been neither maintained nor developed by anyone else, and remains little more than a foundation.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:American Old West shows a slim set of neglected sub-pages:

So there is no rotation of content. The one actually useful part of the portal is Portal:American Old West/American Old West topics. However, that page is redundant to Template:American frontier, with which it has 80% overlap.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers nearly all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:American frontier, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link. Or try it only on any link in the head article American frontier.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article American frontier, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow of 50 images. It's a vastly better show than lone image in the portal.

So, like far too many other portals, this barely-started relic is a failed solution to a non-problem. Time to just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Not a good start. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per 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 falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to abandoned junk, and was just a fan creation. I oppose re-creation, as two years of hard evidence shows the American Old West is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per User:BrownHairedGirl. This portal is even more incomplete than most incomplete portals. BHG says that the topic list is the best part (of not much), but the topic list has errors. For instance, Calamity Jane was never an outlaw. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Canadian Armed ForcesEdit

Portal:Canadian Armed Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal was created pretty much all in one go in 2011. None of the eight selected articles, seven bios, seven selected events, ten DYK seven pics or seven did you knows have been updated since.

  • Note - there is a redirect from Portal:Canadian Forces. The backlinks will need attention if portal is deleted, especially since many of the subpages live in both places. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over eight years. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over eight years of no maintainers and it had a very low 17 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Canadian Armed Forces had 887 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows the Canadian Armed Forces are not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a long-abandoned portal, whose selected articles consist entiely of outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago.
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 has attracted only small numbers of readers, and no maintainers.
Note that since late 2006 the lead of WP:POG has warned "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create". This portal was created by @Moxy, a prolific creator of portals, who was brazen in his defiance of that guidance when creating the portal in 2011 with the edit summary Ok lets rock.......be done in 30mins or so as per the norm :-. That is horribly reminiscent of the portalspammer @The Transhumanist (TTH)'s boast 7 years later of spamming out automated pseudo-portals just for the heck of it.
From 2012 onwards, Moxy made a total of only 13 edits to this portal (see his portal-space contribs). In the last week, Moxy has commendably MFDed most of his other abandoned portal creations, but it's pity that he didn't include this one in the list, because it has not been maintained since MOxy abandoned it.
I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
off-topic
This is this type of post we have talk to you about many times before. I know its hard to stay on the straight line but It would be nice if you could try not to insult someone every post.--Moxy 🍁 20:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Moxy, the circumstances of a portal's creation and subsequent abandonment are a relevant factor in a deletion discussion.
This is simple. You screwed up here, and I am tidying up after you. It's a great pity that you once again succeed in your frequent quest to find something to take offence about, rather than having the good grace to say "yes, I got this one wrong. Sorry". I know its hard to stay on the straight line but while others are cleaning up the mess you made by ignoring portal guidelines, but it would be nice if you could try to desist from finding personal offence at every turn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Again your implying wrong doing when nothing but good faith edits were done. Can you please stop being a bully How to Stop Being a Bully (with nice picture). --Moxy 🍁 22:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Moxy, I am not questioning your good faith. I am questioning your good judgement in ignoring the guideline, and leaving others to clean up the mess, and then complaining that the mess has been identified.
A good faith response from you now would be along the lines of "yes, I screwed up, please delete". The complaining and the bogus allegations of bullying makes AGF much harder to sustain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Did you read the link provided. .... because you just did it again. Perhaps best to stop pinging me or talk about me because I simply can't stand bullies in anyway.Moxy 🍁 02:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Moxy, I did not ping you and I am not bullying you. Please stop disrupting MFD with this silliness. Take it to WP:ANI if you want to, but this is the page for discussing the deletion of the abandoned portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I take it your not aware of the @ notice function and you labelling editors. What has been asked by many is that you simply make you'r cases based on the portal it's self and not the good faith additions of others. No need to imply so and so is an idiot or a moron. As an administrator we do have a higher expectation of you then normal...... please try to be an example..... don't go out of your way to drive away editors or discourage improvements.--Moxy 🍁 03:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Please take this nonsense somewhere else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:AsiaEdit

Portal:Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn portal. Ten selected articles created in 2011, never updated. Twelve out of fourteen never updated selected bios created in 2011. The other two were created in 2012 and never updated. Ban Ki-moon is not leader of the UN. Shahrukh Khan entry is completely broken. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – As of this post, in the last thirty days, the portal has received an average of 96 page views per day and 2,983 actual page views – see Pageviews Analysis. North America1000 06:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. While it's true this portal has a much higher viewing rate than most other portals at 84 per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article had 6621 per day in the same period), it still fails other parts of WP:POG, which states portals should be about a "broad subject area, which is likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." (Emphasis mine) This portal has been abandoned for nearly seven years. High viewing rates are a big negative when the information being displayed is outdated or inaccurate, such as with this portal. How much damage has been done to Wikipedia's reputation for quality when readers saw this junk portal, we will never know.
One off maintenance is not enough to stave off deletion. This portal would need a large team of maintainers to meet WP:POG and it doesn't have it as a decade of hard evidence shows, so it is time to delete it. Remember, crud, even high viewed crud, is still crud. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian WP:POG specifically requires large numbers of readers and maintainers, as I quoted above. Such a large number can fairly be described as a team. This point is rather moot, given that this portal has no maintainers to speak of. Thanks for your WP:ABF vote, not based in reality. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
"Large numbers" applies only to readers, not maintainers. There was no assumption of bad faith on my part; you made a good-faith error, as we all do from time to time. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary, @ UnitedStatesian, you are mistaken and @Newshunter12 is correct. "Large numbers of A and B" means large numbers of A and large numbers of B. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
User:UnitedStatesian, User:BrownHairedGirl - I think that the "large numbers" qualifier can be parsed either as applying to readers or as applying both to readers and to maintainers. However, "maintainers" is definitely a plural noun. It certainly requires that the portal have multiple maintainers. And if the guideline isn't a guideline, that is common sense. The idea of one portalista signing up to multiple abandoned portals is silly. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I think we agreed that the "p" word could be taken as an epithet by some, and thus shoud be avoided. That said, I agree more than one maintainer is required by WP:POG, but this portal has that, especially since WP:POG says nothing about "signing up", nor does it say the only action that qualifies as maintenance is creating new subpages (some editors at MfD seem to believe that). I also think a single editor, if that is all that they wanted to do, actually could maintain every current portal (I have over 3,000 pages on my watchlist, and I am sure there are many editors with many more than that.) Impossible with 5,000 portals, impossible with 1,500, but once you get below 800, becomes much more tenable for a single dedicated editor (especially once such an editor no longer has MfDs to contribute to). Who are we to stand in such an editor's way? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian I disagree on POG, but that's not important. You still haven't addressed the no maintainers for nearly seven years issue, which is a clear failure of WP:POG. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The guideline is disputed with ongoing discussions on the talk-page, so how can you use it for weight? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Knowledgekid87 - The WP:POG is disputed because of issues about whether it was ever properly adopted. Now the portal platoon are arguing against adopting it because it contains common-sense guidance that doesn't support crud portals. But if it isn't a valid guideline, then there isn't a guideline, and then we should Use Common Sense. Unfortunately, the portal platoon have not provided a common-sense explanation of what theUnit value of portals is. So we can either use the long-standing but now disputed guideline, or we can use common sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87, a small number of editors who opposed the deletion of even abandoned junk portals have made repeated efforts to strip WP:POG of any provisions which would facilitate the deletion of abandoned junk. Their proposals are a million miles from achieving consesnsus.
If and when POG is gutted as they wish, the revised POG should guide MFD. Until then, use the guideline as it actually is.
And at all times, please take a very hard look at why you advocate the retention of a navigational tool which has rotted for a decade. I look forward to your explanation of why readers are helped by being directed away from well-maintained articles to abandoned junk portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There are many portals that are abandoned and should be deleted, you are correct. This particular one though shows some potential, I do not see why automation isn't a viable solution to get editors interested in subjects and Wikiprojects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87, I don't rule out automation in theory, but in practice nobody has yet produced a form of automation which adds value. The automation experiment last year was a failure, not just because it was abused by a spammer to create thousands of micro-portals, but because it added no value. I can imagine that a massively more sophisticated type of automated portal might add value, but that's a kind of sci-fi type of vision of a very different future.
But whether automated or not, I see zero evidence that any portal has ever helped to get editors interested in subjects and Wikiprojects. The act of visiting a portal means that the reader is already interested in the topic, and very few readers view any portal at all. In January–June 2019 the Wikipedia main page averages over 16 million views every day, but the same period, the average total daily views for all currently-existing non-mainpage portals was only 107,331. That's only 1.5% of the mainpage views.
In case of Asia, the portal's January–June 2019 daily average was only 84 views, compared with 6,621 views of the head article Asia. So readers choose the head article in a ratio of 85:1, and rightly so: the head article does a portal's job vastly better than the portal page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Portals have to be visible to readers on all articles under the scope, its why some portals have hundreds of pages associated with them and get hundreds of views. This process can easily be done with a bot and is working with larger more stable portals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
My own experience of adding tens of thousands of links to portals is that they made remarkably little difference to page views. It would be easy to run a test by getting a bot to add lots of links to a few selected portals and monitor what happens, but I have yet to see any such test being run, so we have no evidence to support these assertions.
I am getting weary of editors defending portals by saying variants of "they just need more links". This portal has existed for thirteen years, but nobody has bothered to even ask for bot job to it. That's just another variant of lack of maintenance.
There always seems to be some excuse made for the lack of portal pageviews and maintenance. It would be great if instead of trotting these excuses, the defenders actually did something to apply these magic fixes which they claim are available. Then we would have some evidence of whether they actually work.
I suspect they will make little difference, because the fundamental problems with all portals is that a well-built Wikipedia head article is itself an excellent portal, so readers don't need a crudely designed standalone page proclaiming itself as a portal. But hey, do the experiment and try to prove me wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above comments, and per topic. Wikipedia doesn't just go around deleting portals about continents. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:POG on a whole is disputed and outdated (hence the tags there). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment to User:Knowledgekid87 - It is sadly amusing when portal advocates now start arguing that because of problems with the adoption of the portal guidelines thirteen years ago, they now are disputed so that they cannot be quoted in portal deletion discussions. Since there is no alternative guideline, if there is no guideline,we should Use Common Sense, and that means that unmaintained portals are problematic. The need for maintenance of portals is not just a matter of a questioned guideline. It is common sense. By the way, I haven't yet !voted because I am still waiting for more discussion of what to do about a highly viewed but poorly maintained portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TNT, and redirect to Asia, without prejudice to re-creation if and when there is evidence that a team of maintainers will actively manage the portal.
So long as we have portals, the inhabited continents should be among the set of portals, even if (as I hope) the set is massively shrunk. However, that does not justify keeping a portal which is unmaintained. Unless a portal is actually maintained, readers should not be lured away from well-maintained articles to badly-designed abandoned portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The history page seems to show it's maintained. At least that's how I read it (I don't edit portals often so may be mistaken about how much maintenance and vandalism-watch is required to be an active portal). And having looked at the portal for the first time it seems to have interesting and appropriate articles, images, and links for a quick overview of a topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Randy Kryn, it seems that you misunderstand how portals are built. Most older portals, such as this one, are built using a baroque collection of sub-pages, which you can view at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Asia. Those sub-pages contain the actual content, and it is their neglect which is described by the nominator. It sounds like you were looking only at Portal:Asia, which is just the shell that ties tie together, and has had many formatting tweaks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Portal Asia is what is nominated for deletion. When I looked at it the page seems fine and educational. If some subpages need fixing beyond repair, then the nominator should put those particular subpages up for deletion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Randy Kryn - No, no, no. The portal doesn't do anything without the subpages (except display errors). If we were to nominate many of the 24 subpages for deletion without nominating the portal, it would break the portal, which would then definitely need deleting. Portals are complex. Sometimes they are too complex to be easily maintained, and require a lot of work. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon Your statement is incorrect. The portal will still function even if all but one of each type of subpage is deleted. It will not give any errors unless there are NO subpages of a given type (and I don;t think the nominator asserts that every subpage is hopelessly problematic. You should not dismiss User:Randy Kryn's suggestion so flippantly. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't dismissing their comment, but their comment misses the point, which is that it is not any particular subpage that is a problem, but that the subpages were not being reviewed or updated. They apparently do not understand the complexity of subpage-based portals. It took me months to understand just how bad that design is, also. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
That contradicts what the nominator wrote; Mark specifically identifed 2 problematic subpages, which could be fixed (preferable) or individually deleted. We're just responding to the nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Portal:Asia is a transclusion of lots of sub-pages. The set stands or fails as a whole, so as with hundreds of other multi-page portals brought to MFD in the last 6 months, the whole set is up for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, but it seems that an editor over at the Jupiter portal deletion discussion went in and fixed what was wrong in under an hour. Having no knowledge of page coding, is what they did at the Jupiter deletion request possible to do here? In the same way? "It's all Greek to me", but wondering if that Jupiter portal save could be doable here, and throughout Mars and the Solar System, by the same editor, or other editors who know about the goings on behind the scenes (where I but fear to tread, I'd trip over a loose code and break something) to duplicate the whatever-they-did at Jupiter? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You are of course correct that all the remaining maintenance issues could be fixed with very little time and effort. That does not matter one bit to the !delete voters in this discussion. Nor to the closing admin. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That can't be true. If such a major portal (it's about Asia for goddesses sake, one of the seven continents and not the least of 'em) can be fixed with "very little time and effort" and not, as WP:TNT says "For pages that are beyond fixing, it may be better to start from scratch", then instead of deleting the portal and the others (I see they want to take apart the Canada portals in a rash of nominations that even a bot would have a hard time keeping up with) they'd be cheering and asking for someone to fix it who knows how. Kind of like a barn raising. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It is true. I and several other editors (more than a sufficient number) would be happy to take on and complete the maintenance effort (and to train other editors to do so) if we did not have to "beat the clock" that starts once an MfD discussion is created. (already did it once - I had help - with Portal:Nigeria). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is just getting silly at this point. If a major continent with the majority of the human population on it is not about a broad enough subject area, then nothing is. I said before that POG is getting (ab)used to delete the portal space (except maybe for the few portals linked from the front page), this is best demonstration I could ask for. There are readers, it's broad. The few issues it has can be fixed by editing. Keep it. --Hecato (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Hecato, precisely nobody in this discussion has suggested or asserted that the topic is not broad enough. Making your !vote on the claim that they ave done so is such an extreme straw man that it indicates either very severe reading comprehension problems, or extreme dishonesty.
Please take some time to actually read the discussion above before you disrupt it with misconstrued nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
POG demands Broad topics that are likely to attract readers and maintainers. If Asia is not such a broad topic then nothing is. As I see it this sentence just exists to prevent people from making portals about unimportant topics nobody cares about. You interpet it to be a demand for X number of viewers and Y number of maintainers (though you never defined any numbers for X or Y that would satisfy you). --Hecato (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear, Hecato. It seems that you have still not read the discussion, but it still has precisely zero editors suggesting or asserting that the topic is not broad enough.
That sentence does exist not just to prevent people from making portals about unimportant topics nobody cares about, but to ensure that those portals which do exist are actually maintained, and have enough readers to justify their existence.
It is quite remarkable how resolute you are in your determination to avoid the simple fact that portals need maintenance, and nobody has wanted to maintain this one.
As to pageviews, somewhere over 100 a month seems so far to be probably about the point of viability. However, I haven't done much of assessment of the portals around that threshold, because my focus has always been on the poorest-quality portals. Removing them is unnecessarily time-consuming, because there is a small crew of editors keen passionately defend even long-abandoned portals with low-single-digit pageviews, but I will persevere until the junk is gone. Then there will be time to see where to draw the lines which are still too far off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
So 6.19% of portals are (maybe) allowed to survive. Good to know. --Hecato (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. Where did that number come from? The stock market as random number generator? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The source is user BrownHairedGirl's own statistics --Hecato (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Hecato, I don't have a numerical target. I just want to have only portals which are both well-maintained and well-used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The entire portals idea was silly to begin with (just make better baseline articles: Asia had 6500+ views yesterday alone and Portal:Asia is a distraction on the way to the better and better-maintained content), but even if we're keeping portals the current page should redirect to Asia until a fully updated and well staffed portal page is made. — LlywelynII 13:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of readers and portal maintainers. That is a three-part test. However, we have seen that arguing a priori that a subject area is broad does not necessarily result in broad portal coverage. This portal has 24 articles via content-forked subpages, and that is fewer articles than the continent deserves. Is there a plan to re-architect the portal and to expand its coverage? The portal has not been maintained since 2012. I do not want to recommend deletion of a portal that has more than 75 daily pageviews and covers such a large portion of the Earth, but I am not seeing a plausible plan to improve the portal, except maybe by whirling dead rats. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep this portal is needed if many of the country portals in Asia are deleted.Catfurball (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question, including for User:Catfurball - What is the value of this portal for countries in Asia that do not have portals? (Also, what is the value of this portal for countries in Asia that do have portals?) I see that users think that this portal has value. Can someone explain to me what its value is, other than that some users like it? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you asking that question because you are genuinely interested in an answer, or so that whoever answers can have their answer and themselves WP:BLUDGEONed by other editors? UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:AntarcticaEdit

Portal:Antarctica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn portal. Four selected articles last updated in 2008. Selected pics unchanged since 2008. Two panorama editions in May. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade (save two panorama images added in May) and was never completed, which is why its sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials. Only two of its four articles are above start-class, and POG requires a minimum of 20 articles total. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 32 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (despite the head article Antarctica having 5387 views in the same period.) Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Antarctica is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a long-abandoned micro-portal, whose selected articles consist of only 4 outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago.
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 two of the three counts:
  1.  ?? Broad topic. Antarctica is a large landmass, but the absence of any permanent human habitation means that it necessarily omits most of the content which we have for other continents. Apart from coverage of the few bases and some exploration, there are no populated places, no sports, no religion, no culture, no arts, no education, no biographies, etc. I would say it's probably not a broad topc.
  2.  N High readership. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of 32 views per day is above the abysmal average, but still low. There are many stub articles which get that level of views.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. The total of 4 selected articles is abysmally low, and they are all content forks. They have been chaged since their creation in 2008 only for reorganisation purposes.
I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per User:Newshunter12 and BHG. Too few articles (4 instead of 20) and no maintenance since 2014 (and only minimal maintenance then). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sustainable developmentEdit

Portal:Sustainable development (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn portal. Thirteen selected articles created in 2007/08. Selected articles 1-10 were never updated (number six had undetected vandalism). Entries 12 and 13 were created/updated in 2008. Number 11 was updated in 2010.

All 12 selected biographies and 10 organizations have not been updated since 2007. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – This portal was designated as a Featured portal until the featured portal process ended in 2017. The portal has received 2,891 page views in the last thirty days, as of this post. North America1000 03:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Note statistical games. Every other editor participating in MFDs lists pageviews as daily averages, which facilitates comparison between periods of different length. It is therefore very odd, and thoroughly misleading, that NA1K has chosen yet again to cite the total number of pageviews for a period, preventing comparison. NA1K has done this before, and has been asked to desist from it, so I don't know whether the repetition is wilful disruption (hoping to mislead by citing a bigger number) or a failure to comprehend simple statistics.
Whatever the cause, I urge NA1K to correct their post to show the daily average for their chosen period, which is 93 views per day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The figure I posted is not a statistic, it's simply a raw, actual number of page views the portal received in the most recent thirty-day period. A problem with relying upon the average page views as a statistic is that this method consistently misrepresents the views a page actually receives, to a lower-than-actual number. For example, when multiplying the average page views of 93 x 30 days, the total is 2,790 views. However, the actual page views are 2,891, over 100 more than using the average. North America1000 05:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • NA1K writes: The figure I posted is not a statistic.
Wow!
That number is an aggregation of data over a time period, which is a statistic.
The rest of NA1K's post is just an illustration of rounding effect.
I am sad that NA1K has confirmed that they simply wanted to present a bigger number. I really hoped that such manipulative silliness was not in play.
But I am even sadder that such abysmal understanding of simple of handling numbers is apparently no barrier to participation in building encyclopedia. That depresses me immensely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
"A statistic is any sample quantity". That's from a reference. A page hit, url and timestamp, is a pageview datum. The count of pagehits in a day is a statistic for the day. An average is a statistic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I struck part of my comment above. However, I still feel that the actual page views are worthy of consideration as well. North America1000 06:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the strikeout, but still: Oh dear. An aggregation of views over a random number of days is neither more nor less the actual page views than a daily average.
I feel sad and uncomfortable to have to find civil ways of explaining to an encyclopedia editor some very basic mathematical concepts which my school taught us before puberty.   --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In the interest of keeping this short so the discussion can move forward in an easier manner, I have initiated a discussion on BHG's talk page regarding the statistics matter. My experience in the usage of statistics is derived from a college-level of experience and applications in performing empirical research. In the context of quickly posting my short, passing comment here, I didn't semantically consider this simple quantification of thirty days of views added together as being a meaningful, advanced statistic, despite the fact that a statistic can be "calculated by applying any mathematical function to the values found in a sample of data". North America1000 07:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Northamerica1000 - I don't see why a discussion that had to do with MFDs had to be taken off-line to a user talk page, but perhaps you merely were blowing smoke. I took a graduate-level statistics course and was a professional user of statistics for decades, and I think that changing the units is as disruptive as switching back-and-forth between pounds and kilograms or between miles and kilometers. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I've replied at the talk page discussion, where I've agreed to the status quo of posting average daily page views when posting in the future; no disruption intended. As such, I struck the content in my first comment as well. As a side note, SPSS rules. North America1000 14:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Note on "featured portal" status. It's a pity that in noting this portal's former "featured portal" status, @NA1K chose not to either link to the review process, or to note that it was conducted in June 2007, i.e just over . twelve years ago, when the portals project was little over a year old.
The review discussion is at WP:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sustainable development. I urge editors to read the review, and to note the complete absence of any criteria-based assessment. (It's mostly just variants on "I like it"). By contrast, WP:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2007 shows that at the time, featured articles were much more thoroughly assessed, against specified criteria. The 2007 FA criteria differ little from the current FA criteria.
Given the complete absence of rigour in that skimpy 12-year-old assessment, I don't see that it has any relevance other than to illustrate yet again the remarkably consistent lack of rigour applied by the portal project. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. While it's true this portal has a much higher viewing rate than most other portals at a median of 89 per day from January 1 to June 30 2019, it still fails other parts of WP:POG, which states portals should be about a "broad subject area, which is likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." (Emphasis mine) This portal has been abandoned for over a decade, save for a small one off update in 2010.
High viewing rates are a big negative when the information being displayed is outdated or inaccurate, such as with this portal. How much damage has been done to Wikipedia's reputation for quality when readers saw this junk portal, we will never know. One off maintenance is not enough to stave off deletion. This portal would need a large team of maintainers to meet WP:POG and it doesn't have it as a decade of hard evidence shows, so it is time to delete it. Remember, crud, even high viewed crud, is still crud. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Worst failure is that it is POV, editor advocacy, not anchored to sources, biased towards editors' biases related to sustainability. As a reader navigation tool, it navigates with a bias towards articles that editors think are more important.
For a source-anchored introduction and article-based navigation links, Sustainable development serves better.
For a comprehensive, attempted-objective navigation tool, use Category:Sustainable development
For a dynamic powerful search, try the Wikipedia internal search engine.
If the portal has merit as a Wikipedia editor resource, preserve the contents by moving to Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Sustainability task force/Portal.
Narrow focus portals serve no niche purpose for readers, are an archaic oddity, are POV susceptible, and would be POV abuseable if only anybody cared. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per @SmokeyJoe.

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 at least two of the three counts:

  1.  ?? Broad topic. That depends on how we assess the complex definitional, scope and POV issues surrounding the topic. These are addressed in the head article sustainable development.
  2.  Y High readership. Marginal, but I will be generous. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of 107 views per day places it at 48th place in the list of pageviews for all 821 portals. That's in the top 6%.
    This is around the lower end of the sort of threshold I would like to apply to all portals, so I'd rate it as marginal. But to avoid arguing the toss, I give it a pass.
  3.  N Lots of of maintainers. Clear fail. The content has been neglected for years.

So it doesn't pass POG.

Additionally, I am strongly persuaded by @SmokeyJoe's arguments about the POV problems with this topic area. The question of what "sustainable development" actually means in practice is hotly disputed. That makes the topic both a potential target for POV-pushers and a minefield for good faith editors. Similar problems apply in article space, but those issues can be resolved in articles by applying policies such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE etc. However, portals are (disgracefully) unsourced, so none of those tools are available to guide portal maintainers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:DeathEdit

Portal:Death (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn portal. Four never updated selected articles created in January 2010. All DYK from 2010. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - This is a high-viewing low-maintenance portal. As User:Mark Schierbecker says, it has not been updated in nine years, and has only five articles, counting generously. However, it had 129 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 19, and 143 daily pageviews in Jan-Jun 19, as opposed to 2395 for Death in Jan-Feb 19. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentThe portal has received 4,282 page views in the last thirty days, as of this post. North America1000 03:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Note statistical games The pageviews have been listed above in daily averages, which facilitates comparison between periods of different length. It is therefore very odd, and thoroughly misleading, that NA1K has chosen yet again to cite the total number of pageviews for a period, preventing comparison. NA1K has done this before, and has been asked to desist from it, so I don't know whether the repetition is wilful disruption (hoping to mislead by citing a bigger number) or a failure to comprehend simple statistics.
Whatever the cause, I urge NA1K to correct their post to show the daily average for her chosen period, which is 136 views per day.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A problem with relying upon the average page views as a statistic is that this method consistently misrepresents the views a page actually receives, to a lower-than-actual number. For example, when multiplying the average page views of 138 x 30 days, the total is 4,140 views. However, the actual page views are 4,282, 142 more than using the average. I feel that the actual page views are also worthy of consideration. North America1000 05:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • NA1K, I want to try to say this with as much civility as possible, and finding the right words is difficult. So please excuse me if this appears harsher than might be ideal.
These are statistics, used for comparison with other statistics. Average them against a common time base of one day allow them to be compared with the data for other time periods and for other pages. The rounding effect which you note applies to all the other daily viewing figures, so it does not prejudice the comparison which is the sole point of these numbers.
It is apparent that you have very limited comprehension of simple maths and basic statistics. I hope that you do not intend to be disruptive, but your pursuit of high \numbers without regard to basic statistical principles which you seem not to grasp is disruptive. So I ask you as kindly as I can to please just stick to the consistent measure, which is daily averages, even if you do not understand why averages are the most appropriate tool for comparison. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
No, my comprehension of math if fine. I understand your point of view, but I am dropping the subject. My experience in the usage of statistics is derived from a college-level of experience and applications in performing empirical research. North America1000 06:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
In the interest of keeping this short so the discussion can move forward in an easier manner, I have initiated a discussion on BHG's talk page regarding the statistics matter. North America1000 07:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I've replied at the talk page discussion, where I've agreed to the status quo of posting average daily page views when posting in the future; no disruption intended. As such, I struck the content in my first comment as well. North America1000 15:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. While it's true this portal has a much higher viewing rate than most other portals at 143 per day from January 1 to June 30 2019, it still fails other parts of WP:POG, which states portals should be about a "broad subject area, which is likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." (Emphasis mine) This portal has been abandoned for the last 9 years, and is 16 articles short of POG's minimum requirement of 20 articles.
High viewing rates are a big negative when the information being displayed is outdated or inaccurate, such as with this portal. How much damage has been done to Wikipedia's reputation for quality when readers saw this junk portal, we will never know. One off maintenance is not enough to stave off deletion. This portal would need a large team of maintainers to meet WP:POG and it doesn't have it as Nine years of hard evidence shows, so it is time to delete it. Remember, crud, even high viewed crud, is still crud. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
That places it in the top 3.33% of portals ranked by pageview.
And its pageviews since stats began in 2015 show an average of 170 views/day.
As such, it is in principle a portal which readers seem want in non-trivial numbers, and which I would probably want to keep, because 100 pageviews/day is probably near the point where the slim benefits of our abysmally-designed portals begin to outweigh its costs.
However, I note with alarm the nominator's analysis of neglect. It is very disappointing to see that even such a well-viewed portal has been so neglected; that casts doubt on the assumption underlying POG, viz. that more views will bring more maintainers.
So I will do a review of the poral tomorrow, before making up my mind on whether to follow my current inclination to support a WP:TNT deletion with conditional permission for re-creation.
BTW, I note that the WikiProject Death has not only escaped the inactive tag borne by so many projects, but appears to have some actual discussions on its talk page (which is sadly rare). So this one meets the WP:POG requirement 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". But again, the assumption underlying the POG guidance is not borne out by the decade of neglect.
But whatever we decide about this individual portal this throws up big systemic issues. If even a top 3.3%-by-pageviews portal with an active WikiProject and a global focus on a major life theme can rot for a decade, then we have a systemic problem with all portals which requires a broader discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Notification: WikiProject Death has been notified.[18]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
As a navigation tool, it is inferior to the article Death and redundant to that article combined with category:Death.
It contains worthy investment, so move into the WikiProject for re-use, but to make it useful it needs to be integrated into a function Portal, namely one or more of the mainpage portals (probably under both Portal:Science and Portal:Society). It's current location, as hidden portal, limits it.
It competitively detracts from the article death. Portals should reflect their article, not overtake their article. I guess that editors are confused about the purpose of portals.
Do not delete, as this is clearly a third tier portal that may be restructured into something that works. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This portal is well-viewed per the above, the scope is certainly broad enough for improvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The scope for improvement has always been there. But given the widespread abandonment of portals, there is clearly a massive shortage of portal maintainers. So matter how broad the scope, there is no reason to keep the portal unless there are positive reasons to believe that it is actually going to be maintained in the future.
@Knowledgekid87, do you have any evidence that this is going to suddenly start being mainatined? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:2000sEdit

Portal:2000s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Undeveloped portal. Six selected articles, one bio created in May.

Selected articles one, four and five were created in 2012, never updated.

Selected articles two, three and six were created in October 2017, never updated.

Did you know created in 2016, never updated. Entries are vapid:

Did you know

  • "...that the release of Apple's app store revolutionized the mobile gaming industry?"
  • "...that the USB flash drive was "replacing" the floppy disk during the 2000s, and by 2007, computers with pre-installed floppy drives were rare?"
  • "...that even with the crash of Air France Flight 4590, the only fatal crash involving the Concorde, it along with fears caused by 9/11 and a decision made by Airbus shut down the whole Concorde system?" Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – As of this post, in the last thirty days, the portal has received an average of 104 page views per day and 3,217 actual page views – see Pageviews Analysis. North America1000 06:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. While it's true this portal has a much higher viewing rate than most other portals at 85 per day from January 1 2019 to June 30, it still fails other parts of WP:POG, which states portals should be about a "broad subject area, which is likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." (Emphasis mine) This portal has been abandoned progressively over the last 7 years, with final abandonment around 2017, and is 14 articles short of POG's minimum of 20 articles.
High viewing rates are a big negative when the information being displayed is outdated or inaccurate, such as with this portal. How much damage has been done to Wikipedia's reputation for quality when readers saw this junk portal, we will never know. One off maintenance is not enough to stave off deletion. This portal would need a large team of maintainers to meet WP:POG and it doesn't have it as seven years of hard evidence shows, so it is time to delete it. Remember, crud, even high viewed crud, is still crud. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wholly redundant to the article 2000s (decade), most importantly to the article's navigation features including wikilings, categories, and content anchored to sources and core content policies. This portal doesn't even seem to have a corresponding WikiProject taskforce page. If many readers are reading it, they are being waylaid away from a better service at 2000s (decade). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12 + @SmokeyJoe. This is yet another long-abandoned mini-portal, whose selected articles consist of only 6 outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago. I had identified it months ago as a portal overdue for deletion, but had not found the time to write up a nomination.
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 is arguably a broad subject area, but while it is has attracted a reasonable number of readers (an average of 85 per day in January–June 2019, which is not far below my rough target of a minimum of 100 per day), it has not attracted any maintainers. So those 85 readers per day are being lured to a woefully small set of abandoned junk.
@SmokeyJoe is right that this portal is wholly redundant to the article 2000s (decade). The article 2000s (decade) has vastly better navigation than the portal, and avoids the strange selection quirks of the portal. Readers are much better served by the head article.
I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader. If this portal uses partial copies of articles as subpages, it should also be recognized that the risk of presenting incorrect information to the reader is high, because copied subpages are not updated when the articles are updated. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:CompaniesEdit

Portal:Companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dead, dead, very dead portal.

In 2008 this portal started with 10 selected companies, 10 photos and a "Did you know" section. Since then:

Selected companies
  • The first and fifth entries were updated for the first and last time in 2010.
  • The second and third entries were updated for the first and last time in 2009.
  • Entries four, six, seven, eight, nine were never updated.
misc

The list of companies by largest market capitalization hasn't been updated since 2015.

The pictures showcase has remained exactly the same.

The list of DYKs was last added to in July 2010. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – As of this post, in the last thirty days, the portal has received an average of 387 page views per day and 11,991 actual page views – see Pageviews Analysis. North America1000 06:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is a very high-access portal, with 338 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 19. It also uses categories as part of its maintenance, in a way that I have not analyzed in detail. Further analysis will follow within a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. While it's true this portal has a much higher viewing rate than most other portals, it still fails other parts of WP:POG, which states portals should be about a "broad subject area, which is likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." (Emphasis mine) This portal has been abandoned progressively over the last 10 years, with final abandonment around 2015. High viewing rates are a big negative when the information being displayed is outdated or inaccurate, such as with this portal. How much damage has been done to Wikipedia's reputation for quality when readers saw this junk portal, we will never know. One off maintenance is not enough to stave off deletion. This portal would need a large team of maintainers to meet WP:POG and it doesn't have it as a decade of hard evidence shows, so it is time to delete it. Remember, crud, even high viewed crud, is still crud. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was mistaken in my note that this portal used categories for maintenance rather than subpages. It uses subpages. It had 330 daily pageviews in Jan-Jun 19, and 338 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 19. There is an obvious viewer demand for this portal. Unfortunately, it should be deleted if it is not maintained. Is someone willing to redesign this portal, perhaps to use categories rather than subpages? It will be much more useful for a portal advocate to redesign this portal than a little-used regional portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Shock and horror. When I read this nomination and verified its assertions, my reaction was a stream of invocations of various deities: why on earth has this portal been left to rot?
With a January–June 2019 daily average of 330 pageviews, this was in that period the 12th most visited portal of the 820 currently-existing portals.
It is the most-viewed portal after the 11 which are linked from the main page, and it is one of only 7 non-mainpage portals to exceed an average of 200 pageviews per day. As one of the abysmally-low ~20% of portals which has actually been assessed by the portals project, it has rightly been assessed as one of the Category:High-importance Portal pages.
So on every measure, this portal should have been a consistent focus of attention by the portals project. But instead it has been shamefully neglected, and it is an utter disgrace that 330 readers every day are being lured away from well-maintained articles to an abandoned page which doesn't even have a single named maintainer.
But instead of co-ordinating efforts to remedy the neglect of the high-importance portals which readers actually want, WT:WPPORT remains cluttered with the moans of those who want to preserve more of the narrow-topic portals which almost nobody reads.
I hope that in the next few days, we will see WikiProject Portals working with WikiProject Companies to assemble and mobilise an urgent-action taskforce of editors to completely rebuild and expand this portal. But if that process isn't well underway by 25 August (the day before this MFD is due to be closed), then I will !vote to delete this portal per WP:TNT, because it would be better to have no companies portal than to lure so many readers to this swamp of abandonment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Portal update – I have upgraded the portal, which now has 50 selected company article entries, including 15 FA and 17 GA articles, and other content, including major companies from various areas of the world as well as various other companies. The articles are now displayed using transclusions of content directly on the main portal page, the process of which keeps the content up-to-date relative to the content that is presented in articles. Of course, more articles can be added to further expand the portal, and other work can also be performed to further upgrade it. North America1000 15:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Question. That sounds like yet another of @NA1K's solo-run drive-by updates to try to stave off imminent deletion, tho I note that NA1K has not so far added this one to the set of 38 portals of which NA1K claims to be a "maintainer".
Portals don't need drive-by updates. They need a team of maintainers to do ongoing maintenance. So my question is: has NA1K identified any maintainers? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Comment - My editions on this portal have been reverted without discussion[19]. There are editors who prefer an outdated 2015 section over a dynamic solution. I already used this portal as an example here This portal is the biggest example of how wikiprojects ignore their respective portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
At the time of that reversion back in April 2019, there were a lot of complaints about the automation of portals at MfD, a factor that led to the deletion of thousands of fully-automated portals as "portalspam". At the time it was unclear whether or not people would accept any of the automation. It seems that now, folks are okay with using the transclusions directly on the portal page, compared to using subpages, which may have outdated content, but at the time, it was unclear. The version I reverted to also restored the human-created graphic atop the portal and human-made background coloration, etc., versus omitting these things with the generic, computer-made automated coloration. If the highly-automated version were to have been kept in place, it is quite possible that the portal may have been nominated for deletion months ago, lumped together with the fully-automated portals as being "automated", despite the content being selected by humans. North America1000 21:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Utter nonsense, @NA1K. Precisely zero portals were deleted for using {{Transclude excerpts as random slideshow}} on a curated list of articles.
The automated portals which were deleted because of automation were all:
  1. automated portals where the was no curated version to revert to,
    and which
  2. were either:
This revert was done simply because NA1K is slow to catch on, and hadn't yet grasped the differences which were being consistently applied at MFD. Sadly, NA1K also reverted many other portals due to the same lack of understanding.   --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
No. However, you're entitled to you opinion. Apparently, you've devoted your life allocated a great deal of time to getting portals deleted, spending hours performing nominations and making comments at MfD, whereas I am also involved in other matters. The reversion also restored the portal to a graphically superior version, in my opinion. The reversion was not contested at the time, and if it were, I would have gladly discussed the matter. North America1000 21:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Northamerica1000 is gaming the system of the terms of the truce with User:BrownHairedGirl, where BHG agreed not to accuse NA1k of lying. However, NA1k didn't agree to stop saying things that are not true,such as BHG has devoted her life to getting portals deleted. NA1k: May I suggest that if you were to spend less time trying to defend portals that are not worth keeping, you might have a little time to contribute positively to a portal that we can see the readers want? Apparently not .... Apparently portals, or some of them, have some mystical value. Well, I am a utilitarian. (Mysticism is for religion, not for Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Struck part of my comment above, replaced with "allocated a great deal of time". It was a simple statement made in passing, not a scheme. North America1000 01:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@NA1K, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
The fact here is that precisely zero portals were deleted for using {{Transclude excerpts as random slideshow}} on a curated list of articles, so your stated reason for reverting GB's edits is nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: I believe in your good faith, but I hope you understand, I spent hours converting (single page layout) and updating portals, and many updates were rolled back. This is frustrating.Guilherme Burn (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Guilherme Burn: Sorry about that, and I would have discussed the matter at the time had you brought it up. It is of note that others have also expressed concern with using the method of direct transclusions, such as yesterday (UTC time), here at a different MfD discussion, where Marshallsumter states, "the easiest way to update each selected article and selected bio is to replace what follows "|text=" with {{Transclude lead excerpt|article or bio title}}. But in the current post-Transhumanist period I have been reluctant to do it. If okay, I can do that now and await approval or disapproval." At this time, it seems that the use of transclusions is acceptable to others, in part because it keeps content up-to-date. North America1000 00:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Portal update – I have added myself as a portal maintainer. If the portal is retained, I will update it periodically and monitor it for vandalism. North America1000 21:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Not credible, not helpful. This is neither credible nor a solution, nor even a step towards a solution.
This latest addition brings to 42 the number of portals which to which NA1K has added themself as maintainer. That is ~5% of all portals.
Here's the list: Afghanistan, Belarus, Belize, Biochemistry, Coffee, Colorado, Companies, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Evolutionary biology, Food, Free and open-source software, The Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Housing, Hungary, Islands, Italy, Kuwait, Liquor, Lithuania, Moldova, Money, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Oman, Ontario, Panama, Physics, São Tomé and Príncipe, Somalia, Supermarkets, Tanks, Vietnam.
I see no evidence that NA1K has any expertise in any of these topics.
Per POG, portals need large numbers of maintainers. Being added to the trophy list of an editor who specialises in drive-by updates to stave off deletion does not in any way resolve the ongoing need for multiple maintainers, and does not address the importance that a portal should be maintained by editors who have some expertise in the topic.
The lack of expertise is demonstrated by the fact that NA1K's edits to the portal have left the current version with simply a list of companies.
There is no explanation of their significance, no grouping of them by era or business sector or location or type any other factor ... and there is no selection of articles on the company law, the history of companies. This is just the most trivial form of drive-by list-making, which does nothing to assist readers except demonstrate that one editor can scoop up a list of article titles. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to make random unannotated lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
As I stated above, the portal update included "15 FA and 17 GA articles, and other content, including major companies from various areas of the world as well as various other companies." There are only 15 FA articles available about companies, and for the GA articles, I chose a selection that provides a diverse representation of companies. I then performed research to provide content about some of the largest companies on various continents while also keeping in mind to provide a diverse sample of companies for Wikipedia's readers. This was not a "drive-by" portal expansion. North America1000 21:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Also you state, "and there is no selection of articles on the company law, the history of companies", but the portal's article selection focus has been specifically upon providing a "Selected company" in the box for years, rather than providing a "selected article". As such, it makes perfect sense for the sample to be based upon specific companies, as has been the status quo of the portal for years. If you feel that the scope should be expanded to include the types of articles you mention, you can initiate a discussion on the portal's talk page. North America1000 22:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, the portal has always been just a bare list of companies with no context or grouping, so let's keep it that way. When there's been a decade of failure, why meddle with the failing formula by trying to actually add value for readers, eh? </sarcasm>
Now, tell us. How many more portals on random topics do you plan to claim to be a "maintainer" of? Why have you just waded in to a minimalist do one-person driveby fix, rather than than to recruit multiple maintainers as required by POG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The portals project and portals defenders react with the same short-term burst of activity when this portal, with 330 daily viewers, is tagged for deletion, as for some abandoned seldom-viewed national portals and technical portals. There appears to be only three possible responses to a portal being tagged for deletion. First, do nothing. Second, whine. Third, rush in with a burst of enthusiasm that may actually improve the design of the portal, say that the portal has been updated, and leave it at that. There doesn't seem to be any rule as to what portals get a burst of updating. This does not reflect well on the portal platoon, portalistas, and portal advocates. They don't have a plan, just random action. Maybe they don't have a plan because they don't know what the purpose or purposes of portals are meant to be. They just know that they want portals and can't say why. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is a heavily-viewed portal. Unlike most portals, users want it. But the portal platoon isn't interested in providing functionality to users, only in the concept of portals,apparently as toys. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I have withdrawn from being a maintainer for this portal (diff). The edits I performed were principled and of integrity, as well as wholly credible and helpful. I tire of the derision. Maybe someone else will maintain it. Struck my comment above. Cordially, North America1000 18:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I prefer to keep this portal until the MfDs of less visited portals are completed.Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep this portal it is need if smaller copany portals are deleted.Catfurball (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Olympic GamesEdit

Portal:Olympic Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal. Fifteen selected articles and 10 selected athletes. The last time any of these was updated was in 2012. The Olympics is a very large topic and the selected entries do not represent this area well.

Selected articles:

  • Entry number one was updated in 2006 and 2008
  • 2–3, 5–7 and 9–10 created in 2008, never updated.
  • Four and eight updated for the first and only time in 2010. Eight was about that year's Winter Olympics, so it quickly fell out of date.
  • 11–14 created in 2010, never updated
  • Number 15 created in 2011, never updated

Selected athletes:

  • Nine out of 10 created in 2008. The first one was created in 2009.
  • Numbers 6 and 8–10 were never updated. Two, four and seven were updated for the first and only time in 2010. Three was updated in 2012. Five was updated in 2010 and 2012.
  • Number one was updated four times, the last time was in 2012.

Notable errors:

  • Martin Brodeur hasn't played for the New Jersey Devils since 2014. He no longer plays professionally either.
  • Eric Brewer hasn't played for the St. Louis Blues since 2011. He's played for two other teams and retired since the last time this was updated.
  • Note - there is a redirect from Portal:Olympics. The backlinks will need attention if portal is deleted. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for seven years and rotted for many more. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had seven years of no maintainers and it had a low 31 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Olympic Games, which is a Featured Article, had 4769 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as seven years of hard evidence shows the Olympic Games are not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - has potential. Needs fixing, not deletion. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Based on your sports themed user page, sports heavy edit history and guideline averse vote, all I see is WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I will reply to User:Newshunter12, who has provided good-faith incorrect statistics. The pageview rates of some portals have been complicated because User:UnitedStatesian, also in good faith, had been renaming portals to match head articles, and the renaming sometimes confounds the retrieval of pageview statistics. (While meant to improve consistency, this cleanup effort, which was not discussed in advance, has hampered the analysis of workload.) The portal had 29 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 19, better than most portals, as opposed to 5125 for the article. In Jan-Dec18, there were an average of 48 daily pageviews, peaking at 341 on 10 Feb 2018 when the 2018 Olympic Games were in progress. So the pageview rate is not terrible. Be careful in quoting pageview rates when portals have been renamed. Also please minimize the renaming of portals. This rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic makes it more difficult to assess the size of the iceberg hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon Thanks for the tip on page views. I obviously forgot to use both names when researching the page views stat and have updated my post. As to the below question you posed, based on their edit history elsewhere, they are passionate about sports and their vote is just WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - How and by whom does User:Pelmeen10 propose that this portal be fixed? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Pelmeen10. I would be willing to work on the portal and fix some of those complaints. Considering the coming Summer Olympics 2020 this portal should not be deleted any time soon. And it is a broad subject area considering it is about the biggest sport events in history. We have countless articles about the events and athletes. --Hecato (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Hecato pelmeen10's vote and your vote are both pure WP:ILIKEIT, not policy based, nor do they even try to link to supportive policies because there are none. We don't keep anything on Wikipedia based on WP:CRYSTALBALL. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, and this one falls flat. One off maintenance means nothing. This junk portal has been abandoned for seven years and telling readers wildly inaccurate information as explained by the nom. It also has low page views. WP:POG requires portals be about: "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." No guess work is needed. Seven years of hard data show readers and maintainers don't want this portal, which should be deleted per WP:POG. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Newshunter12 - I didn't ask you how and by whom does User:Pelmeen10 propose that the portal be fixed. ·It also appears that some editors are passionate about portals. I can understand being passionate about sports. I don't understand being passionate about portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to a re-creation that does not use forked subpages. I don't like to have to vote to delete a portal with medium viewing, more than 25 daily pageviews. However, the proponents of keeping the portal have said nothing about how they will improve it, and do not seem to understand that it needs redesign and not mere tweaking or more watching. The breadth of topic, as measured by the number of articles actually available from the portal (not as an abstraction) is marginal. The readership is marginal. The maintenance is sub-marginal. In view of the interest in this portal, re-creation with an improved design should be permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep this portal is needed.Catfurball (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Catfurball This portal has been abandoned for seven years and had 31 views per day over a six month period, while the Featured Article Olympic Games had 4769 views per day. This junk portal has only 0.65% of the daily views of the head article, which is among the best content on Wikipedia, while the portal is decrepit. There is no obligation to have a portal on anything, and this one clearly fails WP:POG and only serves to lure readers away from the best content on Wikipedia to pure crud. Please reconsider your vote. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another long-abandoned portal, whose selected articles consist of only outdated content forks which actively mislead the reader. It should have been deleted long ago.
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 has attracted only a mediocre numbers of readers, and almost no maintainers.
I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

August 18, 2019Edit

Portal:MozambiqueEdit

Portal:Mozambique (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Three selected articles and one selected bio circa 2010, no updates. Selected article number one was written in 2009 as a "test," but apparently doesn't obviously link to any parent article. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for nine years and was never completed, which is why all it's sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had nine years of no maintainers and it had an abysmal 13 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Mozambique had 3881 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Mozambique is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Mark S and NH12. Another abandoned mini-portal. Any re-creation can go via Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another long-abandoned bonsai portal, whose selected articles consist of only outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago.
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 has attracted only a small number of readers, and no maintainers.
I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Italian WarsEdit

Portal:Italian Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Six selected Bios carbon dated to 2006 w/ no updates. Six selected events, five of which were created in 2006 (one was updated in 2007). The latest was created in 2008. Featured portal, whatever that means. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over a decade of no maintainers and it had a very low 8 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Italian wars is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Mark S and NH12. Very little maintenance in more than a decade. Any re-creation can go via Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I believe it is clear, which topics are narrow. A unique war (perhaps with the exception of WW I and II) does not meet WP:POG. Please note that this portal does not exist in the Italian language.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12 + @Robert McClenon + @Guilherme Burn.
This is yet another a long-abandoned mini-portal, whose selected articles consist only of outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago.
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 has attracted only trivially small numbers of readers, and no maintainers.
I also oppose recreation. We have a thirteen year's abandonment as clear evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Roads of CanadaEdit

Portal:Roads of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Six of the seven selected articles were created in 2010 and never updated. The seventh was created in March 2014 and never updated.

  • Note - that there is a redirect from Portal:Canada Roads. The backlinks will need attention if portal is deleted. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over eight years (save one small update in 2014) and was never completed, which is why most of its sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over eight years of no steady maintainers and it had an abysmal 3 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows roads of Canada is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom by Mark S and analysis by NH12. Only 7 articles that have not been updated. The portal has only 3 daily pageviews, but the head article has only 23 pageviews, indicating that the topic is not broad enough to support a portal. (Users don't want to read about roads in Canada. They want to read about specific roads in Canada.) Any re-creation can be via Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12 +@Robert McClenon. This is yet another a long-abandoned mini-portal, whose selected articles consist of only outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago.
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 has attracted only trivially small numbers of readers, and no maintainers.
I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this portal totally worthless, there should only be one road portal.Catfurball (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:NorthamptonshireEdit

Portal:Northamptonshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn portal from 2009. Three selected articles and two bios that were never updated. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for a decade and was dumped immediately after creation. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had a decade of no maintainers and it had an abysmal 5 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Northamptonshire had 504 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Northamptonshire is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Mark S and analysis by User:Newshunter12. A decade ago, in the early enthusiasm for regional portals, portals were created for most (probably all) of the counties in England. Some are maintained, but most are failures. This portal has never had enough articles, enough readers, or reliable maintenance. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete counties don't needed portals.Catfurball (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another almost-unviewed, long-abandoned bonsai portal, whose selected articles are outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago.
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 has attracted only trivially small numbers of readers, and no maintainers.
I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:TibetEdit

Portal:Tibet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One Selected Article, one Bio. Since 2008! Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade (save one bio update in 2010) and was never completed, which is why all it's sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over 10 years of no steady maintainers and it had an abysmal 13 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Tibet had 3658 views per day in the same period.) Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Tibet is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Mark S and NH12. Two articles that are a decade old is not a portal. Any re-creation can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this portal is junk, from day one that it was created.Catfurball (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another abandoned bonsai portal. It should have been deleted long ago.
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 has attracted only trivially small numbers of readers, and no maintainers.
I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:WiltshireEdit

Portal:Wiltshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Five selected Articles and five selected Bios created in 2010. Portal:Wiltshire/Selected biography/2 is the only one ever updated. User-hostile system for nominating pages for addition (via Template:Random portal component with nominate) is partially to blame. Current events shows no headlines. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for nine years, save for one-offs like a picture gallery added in 2018 and one bio update. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had nine years of no steady maintainers and it had an abysmal 6 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Wiltshire had 887 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Wiltshire is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Mark S and analysis by User:Newshunter12. A decade ago, in the early enthusiasm for regional portals, portals were created for most (probably all) of the counties in England. Some are maintained, but most are failures. This portal has never had enough articles, enough readers, or reliable maintenance. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete counties don't needed portals.Catfurball (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a long-abandoned mini-portal, whose selected articles consist of outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago.
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 has attracted only trivially small numbers of readers, and no maintainers.
I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sports in CanadaEdit

Portal:Sports in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seventeen never-updated entries including all of selected Articles, Organizations and Events. Of the Bios before the April/June merge with Portal:National Basketball League of Canada and Portal:National Basketball League of Canada, all except #2 were never updated after 2010 creation. That was updated in 2012.

Post April 2019 merge:

  • Bios numbers 6 and 7 were created in May 2015, never updated. After the NBL merge the layout template was deleted, so both entries are currently broken.
  • Number 8 was created in 2007 and updated about three times, last in April 2019

Bio sequencing got really messed up after the botched merges, which I am working on cleaning up.

  • Note that there is a redirect from Portal:Sport in Canada. The backlinks will need attention if portal is deleted. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This portal has been abandoned for over nine years (save for some sporadic additions over the years) and was never completed, which is why all it's sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over nine years of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 8 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows sports in Canada is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 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. Narrow topic. We could have a theoretical debate about whether or not this topic is broad, with answers depending mostly on how we frame the question. But we don't need a theoretical debate, because we have the evidence of the past 9 years:
  2. Low readership. The portals daily average of only 12 views day in Jan–Jun 2019 is trivially low.
  3. Lack of maintainers. This portal has been almost completely abandoned, so it falls far short of the "large numbers" of maintainers required by WP:POG.
Given that evidence of failure, some extraordinary evidence of change would be required to justify any re-creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:TunisiaEdit

Portal:Tunisia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Three never-updated bios created in 2009 with user-hostile nominate page. Wikinews section only shows two articles that were deleted in 2009. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator, and oppose re-creation.
  • I have checked and verified the nominator's assertion about the biogs. Portal:Tunisia/Selected biography/1, /2 and /3 have each had only trivial changes since 2009.
  • Portal:Tunisia/News transcludes Portal:Tunisia/News/Wikinews, which contains only two items, both added in 2009. Worse still, the date stamps show only month and day, so since it is labelled "news" the reader is misled into assuming that these are 2019 stories, not 2009.
  • Portal:Tunisia/Did you know was last updated in 2013, with the edit summary "corrected bogus statistic".[20]
    That's because none of the items are anything to do with WP:DYK, so have never been through the WP:DYK verification and scrutiny process. The page is just a ten-year-old collection of unscrutinised trivia, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.
I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one, and readers should not be lured away from the much-better-maintained B-class head article Tunisia to a portal which offers much less info, fewer pictures, and worse navigation. Like far too many other portals, this portal is a failed solution to a non-problem. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom and BrownHairedGirl This portal has been abandoned for over a decade. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over a decade of no maintainers and it had a very low 13 views per day From January 1 to June 30 2019 (despite the head article Tunisia having 3737 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Tunisia is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator, BHG, and NH12. Three articles do not justify a portal. Re-creation should be only via Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:SaskatchewanEdit

Portal:Saskatchewan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Saskatoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Regina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Note: In January 2016, Portal:Saskatoon and Portal:Regina were both redirected by @DexDor to Portal:Saskatchewan. Each portal had been abandoned as a sea of redlinks (see abandoned P:Saskatoon and abandoned P:Regina). Each has some subpages which should be deleted along with the redirects: see Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Saskatoon and Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Regina.

Abandoned portal on the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. It has a substantial set of sub-pages, and ten years ago this was a good portal ... but this have been abandoned for about a decade, and low readership means that the abandonment is unlikely to change.

The portal was created in August 2007‎ by SriMesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The lead of WP:POG says "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... but SriMesh's last edit to any part of this portal was in Feb 2009 (see portal-space contribs), and since Srimesh moved on to other interests, this one has not been maintained.

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. Narrow topic. Repeated evidence of many dozens of portals examined at MFD over the last 6 months is few sub-national entities constitute a broad enough topic to sustain a portal. Saskatchewan has a 2019 estimated population of only 1.17 million[21], and few portals for that size of population have been kept after examination at MFD.
  2. Low readership. The portal's daily average of only 10 views per day is trivially low.
  3. Lack of maintainers. This portal has not been almost entirely abandoned since 2010, and falls well short of the "large numbers" of maintainers required by WP:POG. Details below.


Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Saskatchewan shows:

Set No. of pages Notes Maintenance state
Did you know 5 There is also Selected Did you know/8, but it was blanked in 2008 Last addition in 2008.
. Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this eleven-your-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a WP:TRIVIA section.
Categories 10 Images displayed beside the category tree All unchanged since 2008, except Categories/5, where the image was deleted in 2014 and never replaced
Portal:Saskatchewan/News Content transcluded from Portal:Saskatchewan/News/Wikinews Portal:Saskatchewan/News/Wikinews was last updated by bot on 30 October 2017. That could probably be fixed quite easily, but the lack of a fix after 2 years illustrates the abandonment
Selected article 7 All use the old content-fork model 7 of the 8 have had only trivial edits since 2010. Only /7 has had a substantive update, in 2017[22].
Selected article/1 had dispalyed the same topic since 2007: Saskatchewan. That's a pointless duplication of the portals' intro section, and on 12 years nobody has bothered to fix it
Selected Quotes 7   All unchanged since 2008, apart from a single trivila edit[23] to /5
Selected biography 9   Only /6 and /8 have had any non-trivial update since 2010. The abandoned pages include 3 BLPs: /5, /7, /9.


/4 is about Leslie Nielsen, who died in Nov 2010 ... but the portal still lists him as living.
/6 is about Roddy Piper, who died in 2015. The portal page was promptly edited to note his death,[24] but needs a full rewrite

Communities 3   No non-trivial changes since 2008
Highways 5   /1 and /2 were updated in 2018 to transclude the lead of the head article. The other three pages are all content forks with only trivial changes since 2010
Sub Portals/Attractions 3   /1 was last edited in 2010.
/2 is untouched since creation in 2008.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to {{Saskatchewan topics}}, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link. Or try it only on any link in the head article Saskatchewan.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Saskatchewan, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow of 70 images. It's a vastly better image gallery than the portal.

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portals fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game. Whetever value it might have had it 2008, it is now a failed solution to a non-problem. Time to delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per 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 falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to abandoned junk which misleads them by stating a long dead person is still alive. Stuff like that clearly harms Wikipedia's reputation for quality. I am strongly against allowing recreation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Saskatchewan is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete – I thank User:BrownHairedGirl for bringing the last Canadian administrative division portal to MFD. (I was planning to write it up.) Portal:Saskatchewan has possibly the best subpage-best portal design that I have seen, with a branched tree structure for the addition of topic branches to an arbitrary amount of depth. In addition to the usual Articles, Biographies, and Pictures, this portal has Attractions, Communities, and Highways, and could have other topics added, and has a capability for users to nominate additional articles. In other words, this is almost a good portal design; but it has the fatal flaw of most heritage portal designs that it uses forked subpages. I concur with the analysis by BHG. It has not been adequately maintained and had only 11 pageviews in June-July 2019. I am providing the following table containing metrics for all of the Canadian provinces and territories, using the June-July 2019 baseline.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Metrics for Provincial Portals in CanadaEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Comments Ratio Percent Notes Parent Portal
Canada 64 18958 296.22 0.34% North America
Ontario 19 3569 Originator inactive since 2013. Four articles and three biographies, no updates since 2014. 187.84 0.53% Canada
Quebec 17 3561 Originator inactive since 2016. 209.47 0.48% Canada
British Columbia 15 3222 Originator inactive since 2009. Little maintenance since 2007. No maintenance since 2017. 214.80 0.47% Canada
Nova Scotia 14 2630 Originator inactive since 2009. Last maintenance 2012. 187.86 0.53% Canada
Nunavut 11 1952 No maintenance since 2010. 177.45 0.56% Canada
Newfoundland and Labrador 11 1893 172.09 0.58% Canada
Manitoba 11 1792 Originator inactive since 2007. No maintenance since 2010. 162.91 0.61% Canada
Saskatchewan 11 1946 Originator edits sporadically. 176.91 0.57% Has multi-level sub-portal structure that has not been fully assessed. Canada
New Brunswick 10 1704 Only seven articles. Last maintenance was 2018. 170.40 0.59% Canada
Yukon 10 1467 Only 6 articles, some tweaked since 2010, some not tweaked. 146.70 0.68% Canada
Northwest Territory 9 1157 Originator inactive since 2011. Very little maintenance since 2010. 128.56 0.78% Canada
Prince Edward Island 9 1768 Last maintenance 2010. 3 articles, 3 biographies. 196.44 0.51% Canada
DiscussionEdit

As can be seen, none of the portals for the 13 provinces and territories of Canada have as many as 20 daily pageviews. None of these national or subnational portals has 1% as many pageviews as its head article.

If a future editor wants to implement an advanced-design portal that does not use forked subpages, with a plan for maintenance and viewers, they can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:CalgaryEdit

Portal:Calgary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Low-pageview micro-portal on the Canadian city of Calgary, in Alberta. With just two articles, two biogs, 4 pictures and a lone fake DYK, it never really got off the ground, and it has been abandoned since shortly after its creation in 2013.

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 one is a fail on at last two of those criteria:

  1. Narrow topic. Cities with populations of less than a million rarely sustain a portal with viable numbers of readers and editors. Calgary's 2018 population of 1.27 million[25] is barely above that level.
  2. Low readership. In January–June 2019, the portal got only a pathetic average of 9 pageviews per day. That's a small decline on the 2015–19 daily average of 11 pageviews per day.
  3. No maintainers. Ths portal is almost untouched since 2013, the year of its creation. Details below.

Created on 29 August 2013‎ Calerusnak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who has made a total of less than 450 edits to Wikipedia. Calerusnak's last edit to this portal was on 30 August 2013,[26] the day after its creation. Since 2006, the lead of WP:POG says "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", but that has not happened here. And the portal has not been maintained by anyone else.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Calgary shows a small set of sub-pages:

This is all redundant to the B-class head article Calgary. Its collection of navboxes provides better navigation than the abandoned portal, and its summary-style construction provides better showcasing.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on either of these links to {{Calgary}} and {{Calgary neighbourhoods}}, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link. Or try it only on any link in the head article Calgary.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Calgary, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow of over 20 images. It's a vastly better image gallery than the portal.

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portal fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game. Whatever potential value this portal might have had it 2013, it is now a failed solution to a non-problem. Time to delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per 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 falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to abandoned junk and never even got off the ground to begin with. The portal was born and died in the blink of an eye, only its corpse is still with us in the milieu of abandoned portals. I am strongly against allowing recreation, as six years of hard evidence shows Calgary is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete – I concur with the detailed analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl and the comments of NH12. City portals, with the exceptions of the great Anglophone cities of Portal:London and Portal:New York, seldom attract re:aders. Since several portals involving cities in Canada (and most of them are medium-sized to large and are Anglophone) have recently been nominated for deletion, I am providing the following table for comparison.
Metrics for City Portals in CanadaEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Notes Articles Type Parent Portal
Quebec City 7 1703 0.41% Very little maintenance since 2010. Deleted. 4 City Canada
Montreal 12 5126 0.23% Very little maintenance since 2005. Deleted. 3 City Canada
St. John's, Newfoundland 6 1022 0.59% Editor still active Deleted. City Canada
Toronto 18 6806 0.26% Originator edits sporadically. No maintenance since 2012. One article and one bio. 2 City Canada
Vancouver 11 4540 0.24% Originator inactive since 2009. Last real maintenance was addition of list articles in 2015. 20 City Canada
Edmonton 9 1838 0.49% Originator inactive since 2008. Only ever four articles, tweaked in 2016. 4 City Canada
Calgary 9 2574 0.35% Originator edits sporadically. Little maintenance since 2013. 4 City Canada
DiscussionEdit

As can be seen, city portals do not have even 1% as many pageviews as the city articles. The advocates of portals have not presented a case why underutilized navigational devices should be supported. If a future editor wants to implement an advanced-design portal that does not use forked subpages, with a plan for maintenance and viewers, they can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete cities don't need portals.Catfurball (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Pervasive developmental disordersEdit

Portal:Pervasive developmental disorders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Static mini-portal, abandoned since shortly after its creation in June 2007 by Mattytay (talk · contribs), who last edited in October 2007. There is no rotation of topics, and its only useful feature is Portal:Pervasive developmental disorders/Related Articles, which redundant to the navbox Template:Pervasive developmental disorders.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Pervasive developmental disorders shows a small set of sub-pages:

Note that apart from the lack of updates, the selection of topics presents a highly unbalanced view of autism:

  • Soma Mukhopadhyay is a promoter of a fringe theory
  • Savant syndrome is a very rare variant of autism, but much-hyped
  • Controversies in autism is an odd choice for such a limited set of topics. Giving it such prominence presents a misleading picture that this is a field riven with controversy

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but this mishamsh is more like a tabloid newspaper approach to the topic.

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 one fails all three tests:

  1. Narrow topic. Category:Pervasive developmental disorders+subcats has only 687 non-biographical articles, of which only 553 are non-stubs
  2. Low readership. In January–June 2019, the portal got only an average of 14 pageviews per day. The numbers have been in a steady decline since stats began in 2015
  3. No maintainers. As above, abandoned since 2007.

Tims to just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per 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 falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to abandoned junk and worse than that, it actively misleads them by giving them a very warped view of this topic. I am strongly against allowing recreation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Pervasive developmental disorders is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per analysis by BHG. I will comment that autism is a field with much controversy, which means that neutral point of view is very important both in article editing and in article selection for portals. Non-neutrality is not in itself a reason to delete portals or articles, but it is a consideration when an article has marginal notability or a portal has low readership. It is a contributing reason to delete portals that are marginal anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

August 17, 2019Edit

Portal:AcadiaEdit

Portal:Acadia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned mini-portal on the narrow topic of Acadia, a short-lived (1604–1713) French colony on the north-eastern seaboard of North America. It was part of the broader and longer-lived area of New France (1534–1763), for which we already have Portal:New France.

The portal was created on 18 September 2010‎ by Mathieugp (talk · contribs), whose last contribution to any portal was in November 2010,[28] and whose last contribution to this portal was two days after its creation. Since 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", but that guidance has not been folowed here. I WP:AGF that Mathieugp was unaware of this guidance, but the reality is that a portal requires maintainers, and this portal has had only sporadic attention.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Acadia shows a modest set of sub-pages:

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 one fails all three criteria:

  1. Narrow topic
  2. No maintainers
  3. Low readership. An average of only 15 pageviews per day in January–June 2019.

Given the long hsitory of low readership and no maintenance, I oppose re-creation. Just delete it, and keep it deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per 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 falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to abandoned junk and is redundant with Portal:New France. I am strongly against allowing recreation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Acadia is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Newshunter12. However, Portal:New France is not much of an improvement, as the following table shows:
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline
Acadia 15 810 54.00 1.85% Originator edits sporadically. No maintenance since 2012. 8 17 daily pageviews in French. Jan19-Jun19
New France 21 1080 51.43 1.94% Originator inactive since 2016. Minimal maintenance since 2010. 22 Jan19-Jun19
History of Canada 34 1123 33.03 3.03% Only very minor maintenance since 2010. 14 Jan19-Jun19
France 83 12266 147.78 0.68% Originator edits sporadically. Last maintained in 2014. 20 Jan19-Jun19

None of the portals listed in the table are adequately maintained. The subject portal has the worst viewing rate. Any re-creation should only be via Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:User n-nbbEdit

Template:User n-nbb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused userbox violating WP:UBCR guideline. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - If it isn't used, it isn't causing division. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on NOT liking something quite specific, that is way too broad. Links to a DAB page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this userbox it should have never been created.Catfurball (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:EdmontonEdit

Portal:Edmonton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Undeveloped micro-portal on a narrow topic, the Canadian city of Edmonton. Created in 2007, 3 subpages added in 2016, no new content since then. Low pageviews (9 per day in Jan,–June 2019), and redundant to the GA-class head article Edmonton.

Portal created[29] in April 2007‎ JayzRaptorz (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2008. The sub-pages were added in 2009 and 2016 by Kyle1278 (talk · contribs)/Kyle1278-2 (talk · contribs). However, after 12½ years there is a very slim set.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Edmonton shows:

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. Narrow. Repeated evidence of many dozens of portals examined at MFD over the last 6 months that a city of less than a million is almost always not a broad enough topic to sustain a portal.
  2. Low readership. The portal's daily average of only 9 views day in Jan–June 2019 is trivially low. By contrast, the head article Edmonton got 1,838 daily views in the same period.
  3. Lack of maintainers. This portal has not been completely abandoned, but it has been severely neglected, and it falls well short of the "large numbers" of maintainers required by WP:POG.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the head article Istanbul, and mouseover any link
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Istanbul, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow of over 30 images. It's a vastly better image gallery than the portal's lone, static picture.

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portal fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game. Whatever potential value it might have had it 2007, it is now clear that readers don't want to read it, and editors don't want to maintain it. It is a failed solution to a non-problem. Time to delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per 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 falls flat with no benefit for readers. I am strongly against allowing recreation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Edmonton is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl. Only four articles, last tweaked in 2016, which is even less coverage than most portals, and the usual poor view rate at 9 pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete cities should not have a portal.Catfurball (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of characters that are a man's friendsEdit

Draft:List of characters that are a man's friends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No way this will ever be an article- way too broad to mean anything, too. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this page should be deleted because not only does the title and the article make no sense, it just a list of characters from TV shows including ones that are not popular (like: “Bubble Guppies”) and has no sources. Arthurfan828 (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Neutral - This is a useless meaningless draft. There is no rule against useless drafts. If it is submitted, reject it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Can we please, PLEASE, let the passage of time combine with CSD G13 to handle these harmless drafts, and stop opening discussions for them here? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:User OurMed/BureaucratEdit

Template:User OurMed/Bureaucrat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ‑Scottywong| confer _ 22:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Unused userbox for what seems to be a dead website. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Was used, is used in the history of at least userpage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| confer _ 22:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

August 16, 2019Edit

Portal:Wolfgang Amadeus MozartEdit

Portal:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Individual nomination from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Biography portals. Ping participants @Xover, Robert McClenon, BrownHairedGirl, Bertaut, UnitedStatesian, and MJL:

Biographical Portal("per se" a narrow topic), not meets WP:POG. Portal with very low pageviews. Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment: [responding to ping] I have no opinion on this portal. --Xover (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This micro-portal was created last year and already has no steady maintainers. The creator, Mozart834428196, was indefed in Jan 2019 and last touched the portal a whopping 19 minutes after they created it. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal already has no steady maintainers and it had an abysmal 3 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart having 5465 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I am strongly against allowing recreation, as all evidence shows that this portal is not wanted by readers or maintainers, and was a spur of the moment creation by a fan of the subject. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Narrow topic, with only 6 views per day in January–June 2018.
This portal was created in 2018, as part of the mad portal-for-everything phase of expansionism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete because of the lack of a maintainer and repeatedly verified low page views. BHG and NH12 used different baselines and got different very low pageviews. In the previous canceled MFD, I reported 8 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 19, and 7789 for the article. That is, the low pageviews are very consistent over multiple baselines. This is not purely a biographical portal. It has approximately 100 articles via internally embedded lists, musical works, about his a far better design than partially forked subpages. However, it doesn't have enough readers, and it doesn't have a maintainer. So we have already tried a better design. Just delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete people should not have a portal.Catfurball (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:SoftwareEdit

Portal:Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal, redundant with Portal:Computer science. Displays outdated information. Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Section Contents Last add of content
Introduction Transclude from software
Selected article 12 articles (4 listed in the article software) 2014‎
Software news From wikinews:Category:Software ????
Selected picture 6 pictures 2014
Selected biography 3 articles (one listed in the article software) 2011
Selected quote 6 quotes 2011
Did you know 2 DYK 2011
Things you can do From Portal:Software/Things you can do 2011
Software topics From Portal:Software/Software topics 2011
Subcategories From tag categorytree
  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for eight years, except for some one-off updates in 2014. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers. This portal has had eight years of no steady maintainers and while it had 86 views per day in June and July 2019 (compared to the head article Software having 2794 views per day in the same period), I'm not sure that's a good thing.
This portal is abandoned junk and has been luring readers to outdated or inaccurate information for eight years unabated, and giving them the impression that Wikipedia is a poor quality encyclopedia best not bothered with. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat on the requirement to have a large number of maintainers. I am strongly against allowing recreation, as eight years of hard evidence shows Software is not a broad enough topic to attract maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:Incorrect not, but outdated, in the news section and in Portal:Software/Selected article/12 for example.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentSoftware is not the same as Computer science. Computer science is an academic discipline that should underpin the development of software. Software projects have failed both because the developers knew too little of computer science, and because the developers knew nothing but academic computer science. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12, but without prejudice to re-creation by a team of editors actively involved in WikiProject Software.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". The topic is clearly broad enough to provide enough articles for a portal, and has attracted an encouraging numbers of readers ... but no maintainers.
A portal which is unmaintained does a severe disservice to readers. We should not lure readers away from well-maintained articles to outdated, abandoned portals.
WP:POG 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." So if and when there is a group of editors at WikiProject Software who are committed to maintaining the portal, then it should be re-created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Comparison of PortalsEdit

Neither of these portals has been adequately maintained.

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
Software 86 2794 32.49 3.08% No maintenance since 2011. 15 Jun19-Jul19 FALSE Technology
Computer science 116 2653 22.87 4.37% Last maintenance was 2014. 9 Jun19-Jul19 FALSE Science
Discussion of Portal:SoftwareEdit
  • Comment – Waiting for discussion of the reason to delete a high-viewing low-maintenance portal.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:You could include Portal:Computer programming in your analysis. I believe there is a redundancy between process and product here. The fact is that other editors don't seem to care about a {{mfd}} in a portal of your project.Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
More Comparison of PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline
Software 86 2794 32.49 3.08% No maintenance since 2011. 15 Jun19-Jul19
Computer programming 89 1541 17.31 5.78% No maintenance after 2017. Little maintenance after 2013. 15 Jun19-Jul19
Computer science 116 2653 22.87 4.37% Last maintenance was 2014. 9 Jun19-Jul19
More DiscussionEdit

Portal:IstanbulEdit

Portal:Istanbul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mini-portal on the Turkish city of Istanbul, almost unread. It was created in early 2009 by a disruptive sockpuppet, and has been abandoned late 2009 apart from one sub-page being added in 2012. Redundant to the FA-class head article Istanbul.

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 is arguably a "broad subject area", because the population of the Istanbul metropolitan area is about 15 million people ... but it clearly fails the other two tests:

  1. No maintenance. See below for details.
  2. Low pageviews: the portal has consistently had low single-digit pageviews. Readers consistently prefer the head article by a ratio of over 4,000:1 1500:1, which is the highest ratio I have ever seen for a portal
Period Portal avg daily pageviews Article avg daily pageviews Ratio
January–June 2019 3 4,824 1,576:1
July 2015 – July 2019 2 4,799 2,143:1

The portal was created in January 2009‎ by Turkish Flame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who had for blocks for disruption and edit-warring before being indef-blocked in December 2009 as sockpuppet. (See block log). TF did a further 65 edits the portal over the course of 2009, but after TF was blocked no other maintainer appeared.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Istanbul shows a modest set of sub-pages, including:

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on any of this links to {{Istanbul}}, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link. Or try it only on any link in the head article Istanbul.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Istanbul, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow of 70 images. It's a vastly better image gallery than the portal.

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portals fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game. Whatever potential value it might have had it 2008, it is now a failed solution to a non-problem. Time to delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per 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 falls flat. It's just a useless time suck that lures readers to abandoned junk. I am strongly against allowing recreation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Istanbul is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I also oppose allowing re-creation, for the same reasons. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, concurring with the analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl. Changing the metric baseline for a portal that has almost no viewers just confirms further that the portal has almost no viewers. Another portal by a banned editor. As Portal:Moscow and Portal:Beijing have shown, the great cities of the world are better travel destinations than portal destinations. Changing the design of a portal that no one views just changes what isn't being seen. Just delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete cities don't need a portal.Catfurball (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


August 15, 2019Edit






Old businessEdit

August 15, 2019Edit



Closed discussionsEdit