Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Guadeloupe
- 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) 09:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Mini-portal on a narrow topic, abandoned since 2012 with low pageviews, and displaying wildly outdated info.
Created in July 2012 by Alexgrim (talk · contribs), who also created all the sub-pages. The lead of WP:POG says "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" ... and this one has not been maintained. Alexgrim's last edit to any part of the portal was in October 2012.[1]
The result in that Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Guadeloupe shows a set of sub-pages which have been abandoned since 2012, with only minor tweak edits since then, such as formatting/disambiguation.
The most recently-created sub-page seems to be Portal:Guadeloupe/Selected biography/5, which announces that Thierry Henry is a French footballer who plays as a striker for New York Red Bulls
. This is five years out-of-date: the article Thierry Henry shows that he left the Bulls in late 2014, and retired as a player later that year.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". The island of Guadeloupe, with a population of <400k, doesn't look to me like a broad topic. However, we don't have to make our own subjective judgements, because we have the evidence of hard data to shows that for seven years Portal:Guadeloupe has attracted no maintainers, and almost no readers; in January–June 2019 it got an average of only 8 pageviews per day.
So this fails POG, because it is simply to narrow a topic. Time to just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl. The portal is, as noted, averaging 8 pageviews daily, as opposed to 2822 daily pageviews for the article. Someone will say that more links back to the portal will increase its view rate, perhaps to 28 daily pageviews, but what for? The content is contained in the articles, and subpages are not even articles but snapshots of articles that rot. A proper design might use a navbox-like structure linking directly to the articles, but this is clearly not a subject area where there is likely to be a curated portal, so if someone wants to develop a new portal, they know where Deletion Review is, to the right. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per the in-depth investigation of the portal by the nominator. It clearly is far too narrow a topic area to pass WP:POG's requirement of a large number of readers and maintainers. It's a long abandoned pile of junk that adds nothing to this encyclopedia but does take away. It's an outdated time suck that lures readers into what is meant to be an enhanced information display, but is really a time warp of crud that makes them lose faith in this encyclopedia's information integrity. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete this poorly made portal.Catfurball (talk) 21:29, 6 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.