Content deleted Content added
BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) →Portal:Asia: re |
BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) delete |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
*'''Keep''', per above comments, and per topic. Wikipedia doesn't just go around deleting portals about continents. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''', per above comments, and per topic. Wikipedia doesn't just go around deleting portals about continents. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' - [[WP:POG]] on a whole is [[Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines|disputed]] and outdated (hence the tags there). - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 01:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - [[WP:POG]] on a whole is [[Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines|disputed]] and outdated (hence the tags there). - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 01:15, 20 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 badly-designed abandoned portals. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 02:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:51, 20 August 2019
Portal:Asia
- 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)
- Keep Subject is obviously broad enough. WP:POG requires "maintainers", not a "large team of maintainers" as User:Newshunter12 falsely states. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:08, 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)
- @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)
- @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 directed away from well-maintained articles to abandoned junk portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 20 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)
- @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)
- "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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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 badly-designed abandoned portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)