Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amusement parks (2nd nomination)

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. Killiondude (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Amusement parks[edit]

Neglected portal. No significant edits, only minor, since the previous MfD was closed as keep in May. Assurances that someone else surely would come through to revitalize this portal have not come to pass.

Twelve never-updated selected articles. Ten were created in December 2007, one in January 2013 and one in January 2016. Four of these are start class and three are C class. Start-class articles have no business taking up real estate on portals.

Ten never-updated selected parks created in December 2007, plus one created in February 2012 with minor updates. Six of these are start class and three are C class.

Errors

Jatayu Earth’s Center opened in December 2017. It's unclear why this start-class article was selected to be here.
Luna Park Sydney was added to the New South Wales State Heritage Register in 2010.

Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator User:Mark Schierbecker - Has the previous MFD and its close been addressed? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making edits to the nomination now to address this. Tks. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too narrow a topic for a portal - adds nothing over the Main article+Navbox (which is in decent shapre). No obvious maintainer and per nom, now error and fork prone. This is serving no purpose (supported by nobody and read by nobody), and it only deprecating the quality of the WP articles on this topic. Britishfinance (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator, User:Mark Schierbecker. The nominator correctly notes that one of the articles is written in the future tense with regard to an opening in 2016, which indicates that there has been no review of the content-forks since the last MFD. (Replacing the use of content-forks by transclusion would ensure that the article in the portal is updated when the article in article space is updated.)
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 selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (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 maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies). Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable. Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
This portal had 43 average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, as contrasted with the article, which had 905. (The head article doesn't have a lot of pageviews compared to some. People don't want to read about Amusement parks, but about specific parks.)
Lack of maintenance, even after the need for maintenance was identified in the previous MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, clear that no one's maintaining this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kept six months ago, surprisingly an associated WikiProject with over 100 potential FA/GA articles to edit. Why get rid of it now? SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging everyone who commented in April who's not currently blocked to see if their opinions have changed (apologies if I missed anyone:) Pldx1 Northamerica1000 UnitedStatesian Hut 8.5 Espresso Addict BusterD Cactus.man BrownHairedGirl SportingFlyer T·C 11:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a single content edit on the portal in those 6 months - nobody coming to support/maintain this portal (which all portals are meant to have). In addition, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks Project page seems to want nothing to do with it (and have the full catalogue of all 4,753 Amusement park articles by grade). This abandoned portal only degrades the good work done on Amusements Park articles in the eyes of a reader. Britishfinance (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another long-neglected portal on a narrow topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, per the delete votes above, and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the poor 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, like an article is, since they are for navigation instead. It is therefore improper to use rationales meant for keeping articles to argue that this failed navigation device should be kept. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised or done 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. The community's consensus not to delete all portals is not a consensus to keep all portals. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve old and 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) 05:40, 23 October 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.