Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:York Region, Ontario

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:York Region, Ontario[edit]

Same issue and type of 3rd order government as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean and all the Indian Districts and US Counties we already deleted. These regions are provincial creations. Abandoned with no content edits since 2010. Legacypac (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a copy-and-paste keep vote due to the large number of nominations stating I have reviewed the portal and believe it passes WP:POG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: You're reminding me of Kmweber and his incessant spamming of AFDs with "Speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters" and RFAs with "Strong oppose, I see self-nominations as prima facie evidence of power hunger" copy-paste nominations. I remember finding at least three cases where he did the former on something that was unquestionably a hoax, which indicated that he clearly never even looked at the article. And your copy-paste "keep" spam seems to smack of that same mentality. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Look at my contributions of late. There are a ton of portals being nominated for deletion over and over again, I count 15 today, including ones on topics I feel clearly pass WP:POG. Due to time constraints, I've been able to salvage one so far, and one that may be deleted anyways. It's been a far better use of my time to review each article as to whether it passes WP:POG - which, in light of any specific policy changes, is what should matter here - and then batch !vote. I had to look up kmweber at XfD Stats and it's borderline insulting to be compared to them. SportingFlyer T·C 05:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15 MfDs in a day is a lot slower than over a hundred portal creations some days by someone who openly says they don't need to follow WP:POG. Had they checked against POG you would not need to. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned other places I have no problem with bulk deletion of those portals, as long as there haven't been intermediate edits. But if we're voting on whether individual portals pass WP:POG, even the ones created by Transhumanist, I'm going to check WP:POG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with Indian districts and US counties, 3rd-level administrative divisions are not important enough to have portals. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contrary to @SportingFlyer:, I believe the edit history of this portal demonstrates that it fails WP:POG. Additionally, it fails "...the portal should be associated with a WikiProject to help ensure a supply of new material..." When I looked at the portal this morning, it had an obsolete version of the VIVA bus system, and it implied that Dalton McGuinty was still Premier of Ontario - he left that office about 5 or 6 years ago. Note: I have lived in York Region for 29 years, and have more than 171,000 live edits. I'm not interested in maintaining this portal. PK T(alk) 22:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to understand exactly how to update these, but I still think it's salvageable. Those should be easily fixable issues. SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SportingFlyer: - I agree with your statement that it's salvageable. The question is, who's going to adopt it as a commitment? Like, for multiple years, optimally? PK T(alk) 00:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia is supposed to be the site anyone can edit but when an experienced editor can't figure out how to update a page, why do we need portals - old line that are too complex or new style that are all code. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We do not need portals for third-level administrative divisions, and we do not need portals where an editor who wants to salvage portals can't figure out how. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation isn't great. I eventually sorted it, but not for this article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Robert McClenon: said pretty much what I wanted to say. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm bundling in a Portal:Eastern Ontario that is very similar to York in scope, but not even an officially defined government region. Legacypac (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While our historical standards for portal content were quite loose, that resulted in a lot of really bad, messy portal content that was poorly maintained — so a consensus has been established to tighten up the criteria and get rid of the ones that don't clear the new higher bar. One of those new standards is that the subprovincial county or region level is too specialized to need its own dedicated portal anymore under normal circumstances, and I'm not seeing a compelling reason why these should be special cases. Especially if, as noted above, these are so poorly maintained that a provincial premier who left office six years ago was still being listed as the current incumbent as recently as this morning. Salvageable, sure. Worth salvaging? Not so much. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 6 April 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.