Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Computer graphics
Abandoned mini-portal on the topic of computer graphics.
Created[1] in June 2008 by Dhatfield (talk · contribs). The lead of WP:POG has said since late 2006 "Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance", but that has not happened here: Tanweer Morshed's last edit to this portal was in September 2008,[2] (only 3 months after the portal was created).
Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Computer graphics shows a modest collection of sub-pages:
- only 8 selected pictures (there are 17 pictures in the head article computer graphics)
- only 8 selected articles. The first five were created 2008. Portal:Computer graphics/Selected article/6 was created in 2013, and /7 and /8 were created in 2008, and merged from Portal:Computer-generated imagery
- Portal:Computer graphics/Did you know contains the same 4 items as when the page was created in 2008.[3] Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section". I have not checked whether these items are actually drawn from DYK, but even if they were, a set of 11-year-old entries loses the newness .. so either way their only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.
Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Computer graphics and its poor navbox Template:Computer graphics.
Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
- mouseover: on any link, mouseover 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. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Computer graphics, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
- automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Computer graphics, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow
Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.
Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portals fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game:
- WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" ... but this portals has been unmaintained for eleven years.
- WP:POG#Article_selection requires that portals have "a bare minimum of 20 non-list, in topic articles". But after 11 years, and even after Portal:Computer-generated imagery was merged here, it still has only 8 articles, a mere 40% of the bare minimum.
Maybe someday someone will build and maintain a portal which actually adds value for readers. But if so, they will do better to start afresh, rather than building on these 10-year-old content forks.
So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages 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) 02:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Previous MFD. This portal was discussed in April 2019 at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Computer-generated imagery, alongside Portal:Computer-generated imagery. The result of that discussion was merge to here ... but since that sparsely-attended discussion focused mostly on the overlap between the two topics, I am making this discussion to allow consideration of whether the result of the merger is worth keeping.
- Pinging the participants in the April MFD: @Legacypac, Dhatfield, Robert McClenon, Pldx1, and Waggers ... and the closer User:MER-C . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)