- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Portal:British politics
Stillborn portal. One selected article and one selected bio from May 2012. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 05:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per the nom. This Bonsai portal has been abandoned for over seven years, save a little one-off maintenance by passing editors, and is 18 articles short of POG's minimum of 20. 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 RGloucester, who last updated it in Oct. 2014, and while still active on Wikipedia, their last edit to portal space was in June 2017. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This abandoned portal has had over seven years of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 24 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Politics of the United Kingdom had 1,050 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 seven years of hard evidence shows the Politics of the United Kingdom are not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 ( talk) 09:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per Mark S and NH12. I disagree technically with User:Mark Schierbecker as to only one article. There are two, Article 1 and Article 5, and a biography, for three articles, but Article 5 states in the present tense that Elizabeth II is celebrating her Diamond Jubilee in 2012. She celebrated a Sapphire Jubilee in 2017 and has reigned longer than her great-great-grandmother. This illustrates the risk of using content forked subpages. Not enough articles, 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, and including a maintenance plan (since lack of maintenance is a problem with most portals), can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- @ Robert McClenon: I believe selected_article/1 and selected_article/2 are not in the rotation. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – Portal are useless, as is this one. Naive experimentation in my early days on Wikipedia is not worth keeping.
RGloucester —
☎
- I am sure that every editor whose been around a while has in good faith made things on Wikipedia which seemed like a good idea at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight either didn't work out or were misguided to start with. One of the marks of a good editor is being able to review that work later without a sense of WP:OWNership, and support its removal or reversal if it hasn't stood the test of time. Thanks, @ RGloucester, for being one of those editors. If only more portal creators would follow a similar path! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:United Kingdom + Portal:Politics), without creating duplicate entries. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator, who correctly notes that portal was stillborn, and has been abandoned since. So it clearly fails the WP:POG requirement for multiple maintainers. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Portal:British politics
Stillborn portal. One selected article and one selected bio from May 2012. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 05:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per the nom. This Bonsai portal has been abandoned for over seven years, save a little one-off maintenance by passing editors, and is 18 articles short of POG's minimum of 20. 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 RGloucester, who last updated it in Oct. 2014, and while still active on Wikipedia, their last edit to portal space was in June 2017. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This abandoned portal has had over seven years of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 24 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Politics of the United Kingdom had 1,050 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 seven years of hard evidence shows the Politics of the United Kingdom are not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 ( talk) 09:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per Mark S and NH12. I disagree technically with User:Mark Schierbecker as to only one article. There are two, Article 1 and Article 5, and a biography, for three articles, but Article 5 states in the present tense that Elizabeth II is celebrating her Diamond Jubilee in 2012. She celebrated a Sapphire Jubilee in 2017 and has reigned longer than her great-great-grandmother. This illustrates the risk of using content forked subpages. Not enough articles, 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, and including a maintenance plan (since lack of maintenance is a problem with most portals), can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- @ Robert McClenon: I believe selected_article/1 and selected_article/2 are not in the rotation. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – Portal are useless, as is this one. Naive experimentation in my early days on Wikipedia is not worth keeping.
RGloucester —
☎
- I am sure that every editor whose been around a while has in good faith made things on Wikipedia which seemed like a good idea at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight either didn't work out or were misguided to start with. One of the marks of a good editor is being able to review that work later without a sense of WP:OWNership, and support its removal or reversal if it hasn't stood the test of time. Thanks, @ RGloucester, for being one of those editors. If only more portal creators would follow a similar path! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:United Kingdom + Portal:Politics), without creating duplicate entries. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator, who correctly notes that portal was stillborn, and has been abandoned since. So it clearly fails the WP:POG requirement for multiple maintainers. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.