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. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 06:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Portal:Vermont

Portal:Vermont ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is another unmaintained and little-viewed portal on a state of the United States. The following is a listing of the least-viewed state portals:

A complete listing of state portals with metrics can be seen at WP:US State Portal Metrics. Portals that are not maintained are useless, and, if the information that is facing the reader becomes out-of-date, they are worse than useless, because anyone can edit an article, but heritage portals with subpages contain old copies of articles that require special knowledge to edit.

A state of the United States may be considered a priori to be a broad subject area, but this portal has been shown a posteriori not to be attracting readers or a portal maintainer. A portal is a miniature Main Page and requires a substantial investment in volunteer time.

This portal should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating a portal maintained by a volunteer who is willing to invest the time to support a miniature Main Page under the portal guidelines that are in effect at the time. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Subpar selected article. News section hopelessly out of date. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 03:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Yet another abandoned portal. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Vermont shows a small set of articles, most of which have not been touched for years. No new selected articles or selected biogs have been added since 2008.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". A theoretical argument could be made that Vermont is a broad topic. I disagree with that theoretical argument (sub-national entities rarely seem to work as portals), but we don't need to rely on theory because we have empirical evidence that in practice this portal does not pass that test: it has not attracted maintainers, and it has not attracted readers. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep: This portal contains basic information about the state but needs updating and improvement. It would be far better to mark this portal as needing updating and improvement rather than simply deleting it. It is far easier to rebuild a portal than to create a portal from scratch. For the status of regional portals, see User:Buaidh/Geographic portals. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 14:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

It's easy to write of updating and improvement, but the reality is that this is just another of the many hundred of portals which languished for a decade without being improve or updated. It gets too few readers to attract the efforts of editors, so if it is kept it will simply continue to rot.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Buaidh's comment is just more of the magical thinking which a decade ago saw editors create hundreds of portals on a high-maintenance model ... but a decade later we can see the evidence that there simply aren't enough editors willing and able to maintain this portal. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

If an editor wants to create a new geographic portal when a previous one has been deleted, they do not need to start from scratch. Requests for Undeletion is to the left and Deletion Review is to the right. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep and tag with the {{ Update}} template, in hopes to attract updates and potential maintainers. Then notify relevant Wikiprojects that the portal would benefit from updating. I consider U.S. states to meet WP:POG guidelines in terms of being broad enough in topical scope to qualify for a portal. It's much easier to update an existing portal compared to starting a new one from scratch. Cheers, North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

No. If the architecture of a portal is an honorable experiment that has failed, subpages that are partial copies of pages, it is easier to create a new portal from scratch than to try to modify a failed architecture. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply

NA1K's personal view of the guidelines is not supported by the long-standing text of the guidelines. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Per the evidence above this one has not attracted either readers or maintainers.

XFD decisions should be made on the basis of actual guidelines, not on the basis of one editor's desire to apply the Humpty Dumpty principle that ""When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." @ Northamerica1000 is an admin, and should know better than to try reducing this discussion to Alice in Wonderland, so I hope that the closing admin will discount this flight of fancy.

In other discussions, NA1K has offered to to do a rapid update of the portal. I note that there is no such offer here, and instead NA1K proposes tagging the portal to ask someone else to do the update.

The that a solution lies in tagging a portal with {{ update}} is risible, and it is demonstrably made in bad faith. As NA1K well knows, very few editors work on portals: they are complex to edit, and have low readership, so editors rightly choose to put their energies elsewhere. That is why the majority of portals which existed a year ago had rotted for years or even for a decade: there are not enough willing maintainers to sustain such a wide number of portals.

The idea that any portal will magically attract maintainers might have made sense a decade ago in the era when the editor base was rapidly growing ... but n 2019, with editor numbers much much lower, it's not just a flight of fancy or magical thinking: it's a straightforward denial of reality.

What this portal needs, like other abandoned portals, is not just two hours of rapid update to raise it just above a deletion threshold. what it needs is:

1. updating
2. a complete overhaul to avoid replicating the functionality provided by the new wiki technologies (see below)
3. ongoing maintenance

@ Northamerica1000 is bringing here the approach used in their days with the WP:Article Rescue Squadron, which was to preserve some stub on a barely notable topic by adding a few sourced factoids which brought it just over the WP:Notability threshold. That approach in article space just left us with perma-stubs, and when applied to portals it just preserves abandoned portals to rot again.

NA1K repeatedly says of abandoned portals that "there is only so much one person can do", and I agree entirely. One person may be able to rush around like a firefighter on amphetamines and push a series of portals over the threshold, but that one person cannot maintain the dozens of portals which have no other maintainer.

NA1K's approach is to preserve portals at any cost, regardless of quality and regardless of whether they are maintained. They objected angrily to populating Category:All portals because it was "being used by deletionists". They propose the propose deletion of Category:Abandoned country portals, because they prefer not to identify abandon portals.

The lead of WP:POG has said since 2006 "Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create". Note that phrase "kept up to date". Not updated once in a drive-by-session, but regularly maintained. NA1K is not even offering to do that.

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 Template:Wisconsin, open in a private/incognito tab, 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 Wisconsin, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow

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, and NA1K doesn't even suggest any way in which they intend to avoid duplicating the new built-in features.

After a decade of widespread abandonment of portals, hundreds of recent MFDs show that consensus has turned against indefinitely keeping this sort of abandoned junk in the hope that every few years it may get the sort of sporadic update which NA1K promises. It is time for NA1K to stop defending the junk. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment - User:Mark Schierbecker has said that some portals have failed to mature. So has this one. I will note that Vermont's best-known agricultural product is cheddar cheese, which takes three to six months to mature by aging, and does not improve thereafter, and this portal has failed to mature for eleven years. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete An abandoned out-of-date cut-and-paste of the main article+navbox that adds little to a reader. An abandoned portal is not the same as an abandoned article. The abandoned article has passed the criteria for existence, and if well written, can still be useful to a reader. However, the abandoned portal has lost the reason for its existence, and only presents the reader with a perception of Wikipedia that it is a dying platform. A decade of effective abandonment (as shown by edits), and effective rejection by readers (as shown by views), is sufficient proof that this does not work as a portal. There is no need for Wikipedia to score " own goals against itself (god, i can see we don't even have the editing resources to fix the tags on the own goal article). Britishfinance ( talk) 18:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep I believe this portal needs to be updated, not deleted, and although it presently does not show the most up-to-date content that does not merit deletion. I will spend some time updating it later today, although considering that a lack of readership seems to be one of the reasons to delete it, that is something I cannot fix. Vermont isn't the most popular (or populous) of states. Thanks, Vermont ( talk) 17:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Update: I've updated the main bit, the selected articles, selected biographies (and added one of those), replaced all of the old DYK's with newer (and, imo, more interesting) ones, and have updated a few of the images (and plan to update the rest later). I would hope this warrants keeping this Portal; I'm happy to maintain it and continue to do so. Thanks, Vermont ( talk) 03:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  Considering many of the comments above are issues regarding no one maintaining the portal, and that I updated a lot of it last night and intend to continually maintain it, I believe those arguments for deletion no longer apply. Vermont ( talk) 13:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • @ User:Vermont, 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 has had absolutely abysmal page views:in Jan-Feb 2019, it had an average of only ten per day. So where's the evidence that these abysmal reader counts will magically bloom from trivia to large numbers? (And no, don't produce page views for while the portal is at MFD and the data consists of MFD particpants viewing the page).

Also, I presume that you are not a WP:ROLEACCOUNT. So you are one maintainer. Where are all the other maintainers required by POG?

A far as I can see, you have done some update and polishing, but the two fundamental policy issue remain unresolved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

This is a portal about a U.S. State; there are likely to be people interested in editing it. However, the fact that only one presently is interested is not a valid reason to delete it. Further, I do not see how page views should be used to judge the validity of a page's existence. The fact that few readers visit the page is not a good reason to delete it permanently. Do we delete other under-used resources? Or, do we keep it in the event of people wanting to use it? There is no burden by permitting those 10 people per day to view and utilize it and for myself to continue to update it. Thanks, Vermont ( talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply

It's also already a broad subject: the entire state of Vermont. In that respect, it seems to me to qualify that portion of policy, and in regard to page views, I am not arguing or trying to prove it will magically increase drastically, I am trying to prove, however, that keeping it is a net positive in allowing readers of articles about Vermont to find more similar content through portals, even if few people currently utilize it. I will also note that I am not a role account, if there was any confusion. On the subject of maintainers, your earlier comments in favor of deletion seemed to imply that you would be okay with keeping it were there an active maintainer, as it would no longer be "abandoned junk". Has this changed to multiple active maintainers? WP:POG does not specify that there must be multiple active maintainers, only that it should be about a broad subject area likely to attract people, which this meets. It hasn't attracted too many people, unfortunately, although that is an issue present in a lot of portal-space and not specifically here. Vermont ( talk) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply

It is sad to see that yet again, a defender of a portal is relying on easily disprovable assertions.

For example:

1. User:Vermont says It's also already a broad subject.
   This is the standard portalista tactic of dissembling. As User:Vermont already knows, WP:POG does not just leave the words "broad subject" hanging there undefined, as a coathook upon which portalistas can add whatever interpretation they feel like. On the contrary, WP:POG is more specific: it requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". That has not happened here.
2. User:Vermont writes This is a portal about a U.S. State; there are likely to be people interested in editing it.
   The reality is that Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Vermont shows a small set of sub-pages, most of which have not been edited for years. This portal was created in November 2005‎ [1], which is nearly 14 years ago ... and in that time it clearly has not attracted large numbers of portal maintainers.
   User:Vermont offers no reason to assume that this 14-year pattern will change.
3. User:Vermont says I am trying to prove, however, that keeping it is a net positive in [snip] even if few people currently utilize it.
   User:Vermont is quite entitled to any view that they like, and while I strongly disagree with the claim that an abandoned portal is a "net positive", both our views are irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't build consensus on one editors creative justification. We follow guidelines, and the guidelines deprecate portals with low readership.
   If User:Vermont want to amend POG to reflect their view that abandoned junk portals should be kept, then they should start an RFC to propose a change to WP:POG.

One of the saddest part of Wikipedia's experiment with portals is the way that it has lured in some editors to waste their time building abysmally designed portals (e.g. "refresh to see a new selection" is a disastrous usability fail) which readers inevitably don't want, and which portalistas then defend by flights of fantasy or outright falsehoods. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC) reply

If you have read my comments, you’ll have seen: “This is a portal about a U.S. State; there are likely to be people interested in editing it. However, the fact that only one presently is interested is not a valid reason to delete it.” This was a direct response to that section of WP:POG you mentioned in your first point. Portals, as a whole, are undermanaged and underread. One maintainer does not mean abandoned. I cannot say that people will start making more articles about people/things about Vermont at an increased rate, although per WP:POG it meets requirements for article scope and amount. I will also ask you, kindly, to stop calling Portal:Vermont an “abandoned junk portal”. Calling a portal with an active maintainer and a decent amount of content with no broader portal to move the content to if it were deleted an “abandoned junk portal” is insulting to the editors who worked on it and is not an argument for deletion. Considering your last bit I’m inclined to believe your intention is to delete all portals, as evidenced by your continued strong inclinations for deletion even after I have satisfied your earlier arguments. Also in response to your third point, I believe strongly WP:POG leans towards keeping this portal. It is not abandoned. I’m offended by your initial insinuation that I am a “portalista” and your later comment that “portalistas then defend by flights of fantasy or outright falsehoods”. I am not here to engage in heated arguments, and if I am reading your comment correctly it has a very accusatory tone. Personally, in the event of another Portals RfC, I would probably be in favor of deleting all of them. However, when it comes to deleting this individual portal as the consensus for keeping the space still stands, I am in favor of keeping it. Thank you, Vermont ( talk) 18:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC) reply

@ User:Vermont, that's just more of the same portalista counter-factual.

Portalista fantasy: there are likely to be people interested in editing it.

Reality: this portal has been almost entirely abandoned since its creation 14 years ago.

I understand that you are personally in favour of keeping this portal. You have made that very clear. But the guideline here is WP:POG, not WP:ILIKEIT.

I stand by my description of this portal as an abandoned junk portal. It presents a risibly tiny selection of articles, using an absurd rotation mechanism, and if the editors who left it in this abandoned junk condition find that insulting, they have only themselves to blame for their denialism.

Here's one example of the abandoned junk status of this pseudo-portal: Portal:Vermont/Did you know, latest version.

There are 7 items listed as "Current DYK". Here they are, in the same order, with the year they appeared in WP:DYK:

1. Albert W. Barney Jr., 2010
2. Charles Mattocks, 2018
3. Reverence (sculpture), 2006
4. Hope Cemetery, 2007
5. Fleming Museum of Art, 2011
6. Vermont copper, 2008
7. State v. Elliott, 2011

So the newest is over a year old, the rest are between 8 and 12 years old, but they are all labelled current. That is abandoned junk.

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 set of 8–12 year-old items list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.

That misleading and mislabelled trivia farm misleads our readers and wastes their time. But in portalista fantasy land, the concern is for the editors who abandoned this junk, not for the readers lured to thus useless page.

Talk of a decision on deleting all portals is a red herring. The reality is that this abandoned junk 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 averaged only 12 pageviews a day in Jan–June 2109, and instead of large numbers of maintainers it has one self-proclaimed "maintainer" whose idea of "maintenance" has been add to add a cluster of decade-old DYKs under the heading "current". [2]. User:Vermont seems to think that labelling ten-year-old factoids as "current" is an act of "maintenance".

If anyone hopes that there may be other potential maintainers lurking out there who don't have the WP:CIR issues of this "maintainer", then look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont. It shows had a total of 6 posts in the last 15 months. Every one of them is a drive-by response; not one of them had any response. The project is dormant. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The section for DYK’s on a Portal is completely different than DYK’s on the main page. If we only picked from new DYK’s, we’d barely have enough for ~8 at any portal, not just this one. Where did I mark them as “current”? The DYK section is for DYK’s relating to Vermont. I will quote WP:POG: “Interesting trivia related to the topic.” Considering trivia is still trivia years after it is placed on the Main Page, I don’t see an issue rotating interesting trivia through regardless of when someone wrote it. Yes, the WikiProject isn’t very active, (hasn’t been for some time, unfortunately) and that is a perfectly legitimate reason to support deletion that I agree with. There is no large group of editors behind this. However, POG doesn’t comment on the necessity of a large WikiProject behind it, although it does necessitate a maintainer(s).

I do not feel welcome in this discussion with you continuing to bash me with “portalista” generalizations and accusations of WP:CIR. Your insinuations that I have an issue with WP:CIR is a personal attack and I will not continue communicating with you. We are here for civil discussion over whether to keep this portal. Regards, Vermont ( talk) 14:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete this portal is a piece of junk. Catfurball ( talk) 19:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Please try to focus your arguments on actual guidelines and policy rather than calling other editors' work "junk". Regards, Vermont ( talk) 20:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC) reply

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.