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) 04:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
only one selected article, and on closer examination Portal:Brittany/Selected article/1 is not the usual summary of an article. It is standalone unsourced text, with no link or other indication of what page it is supposed to be a summary of.
And that's it. The result is barely more than a single-page leaflet, and what content it does have is content forks over 8 years old.
Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", but this abandoned page is not enhanced. It's a pale shadow of the fine B-class head article Brittany, which actually offers a vastly better image gallery: the fine collection of images there is presented to ordinary readers (i.e. those not logged-in) as a click-for-next gallery, accessed simply by clicking on any image. So what might have been the portal's lone redeeming virtue is actually redundant.
Brittany is clearly a broad topic, so in theory it could pass the WP:POGrequirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" ... if it does attract portal maintainers, which would be a turnaround.
But if editors do decide to build and maintain this portal they would do better to start afresh. The tools available to build portals have been greatly improved in the last few years, and this antique framework would not be a good starting-point.
So I propose that this portal and its subpages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is yet another abandoned heritage portal that was never much of a portal and has no maintainer, but there was very little role for maintenance. So there isn't much to maintain without first dynamiting the old gate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@XIIIfromTOKYO, :WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 100 consecutive content updates.
It is good that you have been updating the Recognized_content list, but that is not the core requirement of a portal, and in any case there have been only 5 updates in the last five years, most recently[2] in August 2017.
Please readWP:DEL-REASON. It says "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases". A portal which has failed for over 8 years to meet the core requirement of being updated regularly is clearly a severe case.
It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, the "subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content. The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section.". Clearly, the subject of the portal is wide enought, as it has more than 15'166 articles on the French Wikipedia. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Untrue statements in a deletion discussion are not a reason to delete, but they do not reflect well on the editors who make them, and the case for deletion was made before there were any false statements., Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To quote BHG above: It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft. This is where I will state my own journey with portals: I was one of those readers lured in by this portal way back in like 2016. I actually did read it (and had it in my watchlist), but nothing good ever came of it. Portal:Brittany/WikiProjects has had three redlinks for as long as I can remember, and Portal:Brittany/Related portals has consistently confused me if nothing else (just look at it). The Flag of Canada. I have never understood why these glaring mistakes were allowed to sit by, but I always just assumed that maybe there was something I just didn't understand about the portal process. Since the cleanup, I at least brought it back to its pre-semiautomated state [3] with the intention of nominating it for deletion. I just always hoped that someone could carry the torch for the portal, but I am still not seeing this here. It just makes me sad tbh. :( –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 18:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, @MJL, nothing good ever came of it was the story of about half the total number of portals when WP:ENDPORTALS closed. That's why TTH set about automating them. Right diagnosis, wrong solution.
I am MFDing only the worst of them. I'm skipping past the portals with sets of 6 to 10 subpages, and predominately only MFDing those which never got beyond the one-of-each state, or were only ever automated.
I don't see much effort being put into building new portals in these slots, because I have noted before, two newish features of Wikipedia render most portals redundant:
mouseover: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, mouseover on any of the linked list items shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links
automatic imagery galleries: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, clinking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal.
There was a consensus last year not to delete all portals, and that still stands. But the redundancy means that the neglect of portals over the last 14 years is going to get even worse, because there won't be many new editors wanting to work on redundant pages. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These sub-national geographic division portals do not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. This region can be more than adequately coverd by Portal:France. UnitedStatesian (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Abandoned portal (the point of their existance is that they are maintained). Thankfully in this case, the main article+navbox are in decent shape, however, I see no longer-term future for this portal unless someone really takes a material interest in maintaining it, otherwise it will only decpreciate the quality of the other WP articles on this area, in the reader's eyes. Britishfinance (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The portal is very attractive but that's because the base article is in good shape, and that makes the portal redundant. The portal serves only as a content fork wasting time that could be spent on article improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article gets 1725 daily pageviews. The portal gets 9 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 18 May 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.
.svg)