Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Canadian Armed Forces

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) 08:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Canadian Armed Forces[edit]

Portal was created pretty much all in one go in 2011. None of the eight selected articles, seven bios, seven selected events, ten DYK seven pics or seven did you knows have been updated since.

Note - there is a redirect from Portal:Canadian Forces. The backlinks will need attention if portal is deleted, especially since many of the subpages live in both places. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over eight years. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over eight years of no maintainers and it had a very low 17 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Canadian Armed Forces had 887 views per day in the same period). 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 nearly a decade of hard evidence shows the Canadian Armed Forces are not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a long-abandoned portal, whose selected articles consist entiely of outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago.

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 has attracted only small numbers of readers, and no maintainers.

Note that since late 2006 the lead of WP:POG has warned "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create". This portal was created by @Moxy, a prolific creator of portals, who was brazen in his defiance of that guidance when creating the portal in 2011 with the edit summary Ok lets rock.......be done in 30mins or so as per the norm :-. That is horribly reminiscent of the portalspammer @The Transhumanist (TTH)'s boast 7 years later of spamming out automated pseudo-portals just for the heck of it.

From 2012 onwards, Moxy made a total of only 13 edits to this portal (see his portal-space contribs). In the last week, Moxy has commendably MFDed most of his other abandoned portal creations, but it's pity that he didn't include this one in the list, because it has not been maintained since MOxy abandoned it.

I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic

This is this type of post we have talk to you about many times before. I know its hard to stay on the straight line but It would be nice if you could try not to insult someone every post.--Moxy 🍁 20:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, the circumstances of a portal's creation and subsequent abandonment are a relevant factor in a deletion discussion.

This is simple. You screwed up here, and I am tidying up after you. It's a great pity that you once again succeed in your frequent quest to find something to take offence about, rather than having the good grace to say "yes, I got this one wrong. Sorry". I know its hard to stay on the straight line but while others are cleaning up the mess you made by ignoring portal guidelines, but it would be nice if you could try to desist from finding personal offence at every turn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again your implying wrong doing when nothing but good faith edits were done. Can you please stop being a bully How to Stop Being a Bully (with nice picture). --Moxy 🍁 22:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, I am not questioning your good faith. I am questioning your good judgement in ignoring the guideline, and leaving others to clean up the mess, and then complaining that the mess has been identified.

A good faith response from you now would be along the lines of "yes, I screwed up, please delete". The complaining and the bogus allegations of bullying makes AGF much harder to sustain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the link provided. .... because you just did it again. Perhaps best to stop pinging me or talk about me because I simply can't stand bullies in anyway.Moxy 🍁 02:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, I did not ping you and I am not bullying you. Please stop disrupting MFD with this silliness. Take it to WP:ANI if you want to, but this is the page for discussing the deletion of the abandoned portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take it your not aware of the @ notice function and you labelling editors. What has been asked by many is that you simply make you'r cases based on the portal it's self and not the good faith additions of others. No need to imply so and so is an idiot or a moron. As an administrator we do have a higher expectation of you then normal...... please try to be an example..... don't go out of your way to drive away editors or discourage improvements.--Moxy 🍁 03:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this nonsense somewhere else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three Military Portals[edit]

The following table shows statistics for three recently nominated military portals.

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Ratio	Percent	Comments	Articles	Notes	Baseline
Royal Air Force	13	2444	188.00	0.53%	Originator inactive since 2018. Little maintenance since 2008. Last tweaks in 2018.	30		Jan19-Jun19
Canadian Armed Forces	17	887	52.18	1.92%	Very little maintenance since 2011, even less since 2013.	22		Jan19-Jun19
British Army	18	2073	115.17	0.87%	Originator inactive since 2018. Very little maintenance since 2008.	40	Biography 10 has error.	Jan19-Jun19

Continued Discussion of Canadian Armed Forces[edit]

Delete – A combination of low readership and of far too little maintenance over a period of years. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. If you close this 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 Portal:Canada), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 25 August 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.