Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:International relations (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:International relations[edit]

Neglected zombie portal with few edits, likely because of particularly poor portal architecture (there is no shortcut edit button to edit subpages with the chosen format). Previously deleted at MfD in 2006.

Six selected articles. Three were created in September 2012, with two being updated in May 2015. Three were created in May/June 2015. The only edit was to change the number killed in the Holocaust from 11 million to 6 million. (The Holocaust says 6 million Jews were killed, while 11 million includes non-Jews. World War II's current lede does not say how many died in the Holocaust.).

Twenty-two selected bios. Five never-updated bios created in September 2012. Seventeen bios were created in May 2015, with only one receiving a partial update.

Errors

John Kerry has not been secretary of state since January 2017.
Zbigniew Brzezinski died in May 2017.
Kofi Annan died in August 2018.
Five bios do not have photos.

Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with silver bullets, primarily because of lack of maintenance, resulting in incorrect information being displayed, such as showing BLPs of dead statesmen, and because this is a zombie portal, already killed once, but walking.
Since the Portal Guidelines have been downgraded to the status of an information page and we have no real portal guidelines, we should 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. This 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 articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad); (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 maintainers, at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained. Any portal that does not pass this common-sense test is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
Portal had 43 average daily pageviews, which is better than some portals, as opposed to 1386 daily pageviews for head article. There are 28 articles, which is better than some portals, mostly forked in 2015, none updated since 2017. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Relatively low page views and the 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, being for navigation instead, so it is improper to try to compare dilapidated and useless portals to articles and say they should just be fixed. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised 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. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve potentially 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) 03:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion 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:Politics), without creating duplicate entries.

Note that there is a redirect from Portal:International Relations, which as 58 links from article/category/draft space. Those would also need replacement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Good case-study as to why long-abandoned portals are not the same as long-abandoned WP articles – they are far more damaging. Britishfinance (talk) 23:55, 9 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.