::I am truly saddened by this. Bermicourt ha long been one of the more open and intelligent creators of portals, with whom I was able to have open and productive discussions at many points in the last five months. I took great care in this nomination to praise Berimicourt's contributions, so I am very saddened to see that in response Bermicourt has chosen to lower himself to the gutter-level of the most mendacious portalistas, and respond with a bunch of malicious lies.
::I am truly saddened by this. Bermicourt ha long been one of the more open and intelligent creators of portals, with whom I was able to have open and productive discussions at many points in the last five months. I took great care in this nomination to praise Berimicourt's contributions, so I am very saddened to see that in response Bermicourt has chosen to lower himself to the gutter-level of the most mendacious portalistas, and respond with a bunch of malicious lies.
::That a despicable way to respond to a fellow editor, and a despicable way to approach a consensus-forming discussion. Shame on you, Bermicourt; I really thought that you were so massively better than that. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 21:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
::That a despicable way to respond to a fellow editor, and a despicable way to approach a consensus-forming discussion. Shame on you, Bermicourt; I really thought that you were so massively better than that. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 21:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
:::*'''Shame on you for an unfair personal attack''' and foryourdisingenuousargumentquoting the massively out-of-date guideline whichweallknow is irrelevant. Ithoughtyouwere more open-minded than that. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 06:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
:::*'''Shame on you for an unfair personal attack'''. A different point of view is not a lie and expressing it is not "despicable". Portal topic notability is clearly important and has been a factor in other discussions, even if you'd prefer not to use it because its not part of the massively out-of-date guideline you keep quoting, a guideline whose status is so questionable it is the subject of a discussion going on even now at the village pump. You are normally fairer, reasonable and more open-minded; please can we return to that. [[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 06:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Abandoned, almost unviewed portal about the informal geographical region of Lusatia, on the Polish/German border. It's basically a big to-do-list which belongs in project space.
This is one of a number of similar portals created by Bermicourt. These portals are adapted from the German-language Wikipedia (in this case , and they share the structure and layout of their German couterparts.
The main feature of these portals is that they don't use the absurdly cumbersome and obselete selected-subpage model adopted by most old portals. Instead, these portals consist of grouped listings of artcles within the topic area, a structure which User:Britishfinance helpfully descrbed as "mega-navbox".
Bermicourt has been kind enough at various points to explain the the reasoning behid these portals, and for a while I was inclined to think that maybe they were the future of portals. They display far more links than the selected-subpage portals, and the loss of the excerpts in the sub-pages is irrelevant, because the Wikimedia software now provides built-in preview for ordinary readers. Why create piles of content-forked excerpts when the software generates those previews on the fly?
However, in practice this mega-navbox style of portals doesn't seem to be working any better than the redundant-forked-subpage style. The pageviews for this one are still abysmal (5 vews/day in January–June 2019), so this portal clearly has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".
As to maintainers, it's two years since the portal was created, but:
5 of the 9 tabs at the top of the portal are redlinks. (They don't display as red, but they lead to non-existent pages)
The recent discussion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Elbe-Elster Land was of a similar portal: a mega-navbox, about an informal region of Germany. Bermicourt's argument there was that the portal was primarily of use to editors rather than readers, because the mega-navbox style provides redlinks for missing articles. The blankness of Portal:Lusatia/New Articles suggests that a set of redlinks to encourage article creation isn't working well, but even if it was working, it doesn't need a reader-facing page.
Like the now-deleted Portal:Elbe-Elster Land, this portal has failed as a portal. Any bits of it which the Wikiprojects want should be moved to the Project pages. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As I've explained before, page views are no more relevant to a navigation page and project tool than they are for categories. But for those wanting an overview of the topic and for project editors creating and improving articles they are invaluable. This is nothing more than an ongoing crusade to delete all portals - which is your goal as you've now made clear at the village pump - contrary to the community consensus. Lusatia is an important historical and cultural region, far more notable than Portal:Elbe-Elster Land. Bermicourt (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Bermicourt well knows, WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Hundreds of portals have been deleted by consensus for failing that requirement. You are well aware of both the guideline and its applications, so your statement that page views are not relevant is a blatant lie: i.e. it is a deliberate falsehood, a wilful misrepresentation of the guidelines.
As Bermicourt well knows, WP:Notability a criterion for articles, not for portals.
Average daily pageviews of portal on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019 Bermicourt well knows, my experience of months of analysing portals has not led me to advocate delete all portals or to make that my goal. What it has led me to believe is that there should be an RFC to consider a proposal that the long tail of underused portals should be culled, which as you well know is not the same thing as delete all portals. Culling the tail does not run counter to the community consensus at WP:ENDPORTALS, and even if it did, a new RFC could set a nee consensus. Your wilful misrepresentation of my goals is a straightfowrard lie, designed to discredit me and to undermine this discussion by making an ad hominem smear.
I am truly saddened by this. Bermicourt ha long been one of the more open and intelligent creators of portals, with whom I was able to have open and productive discussions at many points in the last five months. I took great care in this nomination to praise Berimicourt's contributions, so I am very saddened to see that in response Bermicourt has chosen to lower himself to the gutter-level of the most mendacious portalistas, and respond with a bunch of malicious lies.
That a despicable way to respond to a fellow editor, and a despicable way to approach a consensus-forming discussion. Shame on you, Bermicourt; I really thought that you were so massively better than that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on you for an unfair personal attack. A different point of view is not a lie and expressing it is not "despicable". Portal topic notability is clearly important and has been a factor in other discussions, even if you'd prefer not to use it because its not part of the massively out-of-date guideline you keep quoting, a guideline whose status is so questionable it is the subject of a discussion going on even now at the village pump. You are normally fairer, reasonable and more open-minded; please can we return to that. Bermicourt (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
