- 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) 09:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Neglected portal.
Four selected articles created in April 2008 that were updated for the first and last time in December 2008. Eight entries created December 2008 that were never updated.
This portal links to several outside resources. Aside from one deadlink, any of these is a more suitable portal for this kind of knowledge. Readers should seek out these better maintained sites rather than waste any more time here.
This portal, however, does contain one thing no other website can match: Useless, questionable trivia.
There's a DYK section which consists of eight factoids which alternate month to month. This is done in two sets of four, which are each needlessly duplicated six times. This is a wasteful use of subpages and makes correcting their many mistakes much like attempting to slay Hydra.
- One factoid claims "Wikipedia in Esperanto (Vikipedio) is one of the few Wikipedias with over 150,000 articles?" There are now 49 Wikipedias with more than 150,000 articles, and Esperanto Wikipedia is only in the top 32 by article count.
- Another said the Esperanto article has awarded featured status on nine Wikipedias. I only count four, and this seems like more navel-gazing.
- Another blurb claims Esperanto contains six letters, including ŭ, found in no other alphabet. That is not strictly true as you will see from reading the ŭ article.
- Another blurbs says "Hungarians may elect among several languages when taking their university entrance exams and that Esperanto is the fourth language on the list." This fact is not cited and I did not find anything from a cursory Google search. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 07:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per User:Mark Schierbecker - This appears to be a portal that was supposed to have monthly maintenance, but that was discontinued in 2008 when the originator went away. A language may be a broad topic in theory, but only if it is being maintained. Portal had 9 daily pageviews Jan-Jun 2019 (as opposed to head article had 2646). Do You Know items are very seldom a reason to Keep a portal. They are only a reason to Delete either a portal or the DYKs if they are questionable. In this case, as noted by the nominator, they are questionable. If the portal were to be Kept, the DYKs should be deleted. But as it is, they are just another mark against the portal. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per the nom and Robert McClenon. Was created in 2005 and dumped by creator JonMoore in 2006, while his last Wikipedia edit was in 2007. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This decrepit portal has had over a decade of no maintainers and it had an abysmal 9 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Esperanto had 2,646 views per day in the same period). This portal demonstrates the fundamental problem of allowing unsourced DYK's on portals; the information is dubious to begin with and even if Hungarians had those test options in 2005, it might have changed. 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 Esperanto is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 ( talk) 16:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - BrownHairedGirl, maybe you can help with this. Portal:Constructed languages would be a good alternate target for those red-links if this portal is deleted. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 22:49, 29 August 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), without creating duplicate entries. In this case that is Portal:Constructed languages, as suggested by Newshunter12. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per the nom and Robert McC and NH12. Abandoned for a decade, clearly fails the maintenance requirements of POG. The DYK pages at Portal:Esperanto/Did you know consist of a set of fake DYKs (unconnected to WP:DYK), all of which just unsourced POV-pushing. It's time to stop luring readers away from articles to this abandoned junk. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:09, 29 August 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) 09:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Neglected portal.
Four selected articles created in April 2008 that were updated for the first and last time in December 2008. Eight entries created December 2008 that were never updated.
This portal links to several outside resources. Aside from one deadlink, any of these is a more suitable portal for this kind of knowledge. Readers should seek out these better maintained sites rather than waste any more time here.
This portal, however, does contain one thing no other website can match: Useless, questionable trivia.
There's a DYK section which consists of eight factoids which alternate month to month. This is done in two sets of four, which are each needlessly duplicated six times. This is a wasteful use of subpages and makes correcting their many mistakes much like attempting to slay Hydra.
- One factoid claims "Wikipedia in Esperanto (Vikipedio) is one of the few Wikipedias with over 150,000 articles?" There are now 49 Wikipedias with more than 150,000 articles, and Esperanto Wikipedia is only in the top 32 by article count.
- Another said the Esperanto article has awarded featured status on nine Wikipedias. I only count four, and this seems like more navel-gazing.
- Another blurb claims Esperanto contains six letters, including ŭ, found in no other alphabet. That is not strictly true as you will see from reading the ŭ article.
- Another blurbs says "Hungarians may elect among several languages when taking their university entrance exams and that Esperanto is the fourth language on the list." This fact is not cited and I did not find anything from a cursory Google search. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 07:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per User:Mark Schierbecker - This appears to be a portal that was supposed to have monthly maintenance, but that was discontinued in 2008 when the originator went away. A language may be a broad topic in theory, but only if it is being maintained. Portal had 9 daily pageviews Jan-Jun 2019 (as opposed to head article had 2646). Do You Know items are very seldom a reason to Keep a portal. They are only a reason to Delete either a portal or the DYKs if they are questionable. In this case, as noted by the nominator, they are questionable. If the portal were to be Kept, the DYKs should be deleted. But as it is, they are just another mark against the portal. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per the nom and Robert McClenon. Was created in 2005 and dumped by creator JonMoore in 2006, while his last Wikipedia edit was in 2007. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This decrepit portal has had over a decade of no maintainers and it had an abysmal 9 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Esperanto had 2,646 views per day in the same period). This portal demonstrates the fundamental problem of allowing unsourced DYK's on portals; the information is dubious to begin with and even if Hungarians had those test options in 2005, it might have changed. 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 Esperanto is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 ( talk) 16:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - BrownHairedGirl, maybe you can help with this. Portal:Constructed languages would be a good alternate target for those red-links if this portal is deleted. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 22:49, 29 August 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), without creating duplicate entries. In this case that is Portal:Constructed languages, as suggested by Newshunter12. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per the nom and Robert McC and NH12. Abandoned for a decade, clearly fails the maintenance requirements of POG. The DYK pages at Portal:Esperanto/Did you know consist of a set of fake DYKs (unconnected to WP:DYK), all of which just unsourced POV-pushing. It's time to stop luring readers away from articles to this abandoned junk. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:09, 29 August 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.