Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Victoria

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 October 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Victoria[edit]

Portal created in 2006, never completed and abandoned since 2008 or so. 4 selected biographies, content-forked in 2007. 215 edits by 40 users, to no avail. Nemo 20:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The following table shows pageview and article metrics for Australia and its states. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Australian State Portals[edit]

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Comments	Baseline	Percent	Articles	Notes	Parent Portal	Type	Deleted
Australia	77	17864	Last maintenance of articles appears to be 2012, but news is current and articles are extensive.	Jan19-Feb19	0.43%	100		Oceania	Country	FALSE
Queensland	29	1917	Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance 2014.	Jan19-Jun19	1.51%	35		Australia	State	FALSE
New South Wales	18	2431	Originator inactive since 2018. Last maintenance 2013.	Jan19-Feb19	0.74%	14		Australia	State	FALSE
Western Australia	13	1312	Originator last edited in 2012. Last maintenance 2010.	Jan19-Feb19	0.99%	28		Australia	State	FALSE
Australian Capital Territory	9	723	Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2012.	Jan19-Jun19	1.24%	11		Australia	State	TRUE
Northern Territory	9	1194	Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2008. Only three articles. Has false blank entries.	Jan19-Jun19	0.75%	3		Australia	State	TRUE
South Australia	9	942	Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2013.	Jan19-Jun19	0.96%	17		Australia	State	FALSE
Tasmania	9	2913	Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance 2007.	Jan19-Feb19	0.31%	13		Australia	State	FALSE
Victoria	9	1478	Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2013.	Jan19-Jun19	0.61%	14	Has false blank entries for articles and biographies.	Australia	State	FALSE

Victoria[edit]

Delete - Very low readership at 9 daily pageviews, too few articles, no maintenance on articles since 2013. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 6 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:Australia), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Scott Davis ^Talk 13:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and per the fact there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. 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 of links rather than redirection, as proposed by BrownHairedGirl, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Two comments: (1) the above table (which seems to get brought out for every state AfD) should not be relied upon to support deletion. It is not accurate, as there are in several of the state portal pages transcluded pages that have been edited after the original page. (2) People originally put a lot of good work into these portals, and the deletions seem to be driven a desire to nominate portal after portal for deletion (based on a view that WP should have no portals at all) and also seem to involve the same editors commenting in favour of deletion. These constant AfDs with low participation and what seems a prejudged outcome are unfair. How is anyone ever able to fairly put forward a case for keeping these pages? Bookscale (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "How is anyone ever able to fairly put forward a case for keeping these pages?" Usually by showing that the content of the portal is fine and/or getting better, see for instance the recently kept portals Monaco, Solar System, Asia. The fact that most MfD end up with deletion only means that the nominators have been good at not nominating portals for which there would be consensus to keep (or no consensus to delete). Nemo 10:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need state portals.Catfurball (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT by another name. There is no policy that says state portals should be deleted (and if that was Wikipedia consensus I would have no problem with that, my concern is that individual AfDs seem to be run on such an assumption even though none exists). Bookscale (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Bookscale - The question at this point is whether to delete Portal:Victoria. Is the information about Portal:Victoria accurate? If the issue has to do with other states, it was accurate when I last checked. The issue seems to be that when a portal has been neglected for years and is then discussed, portal advocates go into full Article Rescue Squadron mode scurrying around and making trivial changes to the subpages. If any portals that are listed for comparison have been updated recently, since I last checked them, I am willing to check them again, and am willing to note that the portal was edited in 2019 after years of neglect. Which states are you requesting be rechecked? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - thanks Robert McLenon. I acknowledge that this AfD is only about Victoria, but if you're using a table as a comparator for other states it's only fair that all data (both for Victoria and other states), including transcluded pages, is up to date at the time of the nomination (or inclusion of the table, whatever is easier). Bookscale (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a wiki, you can update it yourself. Personally I appreciate the research even if it's not constantly kept up to date. Nemo 13:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - You appreciate it because it is out of date and supports your view that no portals should be kept? Bookscale (talk) 07:55, 12 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.