- 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) 16:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Earthquakes
Neglected portal. Eight never-updated selected articles that were created in July 2008. See also: Portal:Disasters. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 05:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - We can't see
Portal:Disasters.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 06:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Disasters for the deletion discussion of that portal. BLAIXX 16:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - Portal had 23 average daily pageviews in first half of 2019, as opposed to 4613 for article. I count 9 articles, forked in 2008, most of which have had cosmetic edits between 2010 and 2017. There have been earthquakes since 2008.
- The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense. It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers. (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.) Common sense imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense: (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintainers, at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained. Any portal that does not pass this common-sense test is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
- Not enough articles and no substantive maintenance. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - I've been creating and expanding earthquake articles since about the time that this portal was first created and I have remained entirely unaware of its existence. It would take a lot of time and effort to update the portal, not to mention keeping it updated, so, unless someone offers to take this on (in which case I wouldn't mind helping out), I think that it should go. Mikenorton ( talk) 10:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - I made this more than 10 years ago, and it hasn't been maintained since. ceran thor 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, even the creator doesn't want it anymore, which is a sure sign that no one else wants to either. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per above and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, being for navigation instead, so it is improper to try to compare dilapidated and useless portals to articles and say they should just be fixed. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised at the last minute just to stave off deletion. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve potentially inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. I support replacement or removal of links rather than redirection, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- ( talk) 05:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and per @ Robert McClenon. Yet another long-abandoned portal, with a small set of articles and no substantive maintenance. Its creator moved on long ago, and there is no sign of maintainers.
- WP:WikiProject Earthquakes shows no interest in the portal, so there is no reason to believe that it can support the portal. The project has been tagged as semi-active since May 2017. [1] The only mention of the portal on WP:WikiProject Earthquakes is the notice of this MFD; and a search of its archives for "Portal:Earthquakes" gives no hits. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:32, 15 October 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 I think it's
Portal:GeologyPortal:Earth sciences), without creating duplicate entries. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- That would be
Portal:Earth sciences (although Geology redirects to that anyway).
Mikenorton (
talk) 19:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction, Mikenorton. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- That would be
Portal:Earth sciences (although Geology redirects to that anyway).
Mikenorton (
talk) 19:54, 15 October 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) 16:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Earthquakes
Neglected portal. Eight never-updated selected articles that were created in July 2008. See also: Portal:Disasters. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 05:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - We can't see
Portal:Disasters.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 06:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Disasters for the deletion discussion of that portal. BLAIXX 16:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - Portal had 23 average daily pageviews in first half of 2019, as opposed to 4613 for article. I count 9 articles, forked in 2008, most of which have had cosmetic edits between 2010 and 2017. There have been earthquakes since 2008.
- The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense. It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers. (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.) Common sense imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense: (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintainers, at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained. Any portal that does not pass this common-sense test is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
- Not enough articles and no substantive maintenance. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - I've been creating and expanding earthquake articles since about the time that this portal was first created and I have remained entirely unaware of its existence. It would take a lot of time and effort to update the portal, not to mention keeping it updated, so, unless someone offers to take this on (in which case I wouldn't mind helping out), I think that it should go. Mikenorton ( talk) 10:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - I made this more than 10 years ago, and it hasn't been maintained since. ceran thor 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, even the creator doesn't want it anymore, which is a sure sign that no one else wants to either. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per above and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, being for navigation instead, so it is improper to try to compare dilapidated and useless portals to articles and say they should just be fixed. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised at the last minute just to stave off deletion. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve potentially inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. I support replacement or removal of links rather than redirection, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- ( talk) 05:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and per @ Robert McClenon. Yet another long-abandoned portal, with a small set of articles and no substantive maintenance. Its creator moved on long ago, and there is no sign of maintainers.
- WP:WikiProject Earthquakes shows no interest in the portal, so there is no reason to believe that it can support the portal. The project has been tagged as semi-active since May 2017. [1] The only mention of the portal on WP:WikiProject Earthquakes is the notice of this MFD; and a search of its archives for "Portal:Earthquakes" gives no hits. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:32, 15 October 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 I think it's
Portal:GeologyPortal:Earth sciences), without creating duplicate entries. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- That would be
Portal:Earth sciences (although Geology redirects to that anyway).
Mikenorton (
talk) 19:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction, Mikenorton. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- That would be
Portal:Earth sciences (although Geology redirects to that anyway).
Mikenorton (
talk) 19:54, 15 October 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.