The result of the discussion was: delete. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 03:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Narrow topic, with a trivially low readership, and poor maintenance.
The topic is the Westerwald, a low mountain range on the right bank of the river Rhine in the German federal states of Rhineland-Palatinate, Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia.
This portal uses the mega-navbox format which its creator and main maintainer Bermicourt has imported from the German-language Wikipedia. I personally think that this is a vastly superior format to the predominant one-at-a-time "selected article" style of navbox, but sadly readers seem no more interested in reading this superior type of portal than the horrible old purge-for-new-selection format.
However, this portal clearly 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 fails on two of the three counts:
Unlike some other similarly-built German portals, this one does not have a "Wanted articles" section. But much of the rest could be a basis for navboxes, so I would happily support moving the portal to the appropriate WikiProject, which is probably WikiProject Germany.
Bermicourt has indicated elsewhere (e.g. at MFD:Portal:Eifel) that portals such as this are primarily intended to assist editors rather than readers. This conflicts with WP:PORTAL, which says that " Portals are meant primarily for readers". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
major cultural and natural region of the European Central Uplands. Reality: as clearly explained in the nomination, it has only only 123 articles above start-class.
Page views are irrelevant while the search engine fails to find them portals. Reality: this is a tedious piece of recurring nonsense, which portals fans should have dropped long ago. The search engine does find portals, if the user searches for portals. See this search for portals containing the word "Europe". If the user searches for articles, they get articles: not categories or talk page or Wikipedia pages or draft pages or templates or modules.
guidelines are neither fit for purpose...
nor authoritative as they are the subject of a current discussion. Reality: if and when an RFC amends or replaces the guidelines, we can use the new guideline. But the fact that Bermicourt and a few other defenders of failed portals don't like the guidelines being applied does not invalidate the guidance. That's a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance.
This proposal is just another part of the ongoing campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus.
campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals. Having discussed this with Bermicourt many times, he well knows that is not my aim at MFD, and he should not try to strengthen his case at MFD by misrepresenting me that way. Such dishonesty is uncivil WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.
The result of the discussion was: delete. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 03:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Narrow topic, with a trivially low readership, and poor maintenance.
The topic is the Westerwald, a low mountain range on the right bank of the river Rhine in the German federal states of Rhineland-Palatinate, Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia.
This portal uses the mega-navbox format which its creator and main maintainer Bermicourt has imported from the German-language Wikipedia. I personally think that this is a vastly superior format to the predominant one-at-a-time "selected article" style of navbox, but sadly readers seem no more interested in reading this superior type of portal than the horrible old purge-for-new-selection format.
However, this portal clearly 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 fails on two of the three counts:
Unlike some other similarly-built German portals, this one does not have a "Wanted articles" section. But much of the rest could be a basis for navboxes, so I would happily support moving the portal to the appropriate WikiProject, which is probably WikiProject Germany.
Bermicourt has indicated elsewhere (e.g. at MFD:Portal:Eifel) that portals such as this are primarily intended to assist editors rather than readers. This conflicts with WP:PORTAL, which says that " Portals are meant primarily for readers". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
major cultural and natural region of the European Central Uplands. Reality: as clearly explained in the nomination, it has only only 123 articles above start-class.
Page views are irrelevant while the search engine fails to find them portals. Reality: this is a tedious piece of recurring nonsense, which portals fans should have dropped long ago. The search engine does find portals, if the user searches for portals. See this search for portals containing the word "Europe". If the user searches for articles, they get articles: not categories or talk page or Wikipedia pages or draft pages or templates or modules.
guidelines are neither fit for purpose...
nor authoritative as they are the subject of a current discussion. Reality: if and when an RFC amends or replaces the guidelines, we can use the new guideline. But the fact that Bermicourt and a few other defenders of failed portals don't like the guidelines being applied does not invalidate the guidance. That's a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance.
This proposal is just another part of the ongoing campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus.
campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals. Having discussed this with Bermicourt many times, he well knows that is not my aim at MFD, and he should not try to strengthen his case at MFD by misrepresenting me that way. Such dishonesty is uncivil WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.