Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Antarctica

Portal:Antarctica

Portal:Antarctica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn portal. Four selected articles last updated in 2008. Selected pics unchanged since 2008. Two panorama editions in May. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade (save two panorama images added in May) and was never completed, which is why its sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials. Only two of its four articles are above start-class, and POG requires a minimum of 20 articles total. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 32 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (despite the head article Antarctica having 5387 views in the same period.) Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Antarctica is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a long-abandoned micro-portal, whose selected articles consist of only 4 outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This fails on two of the three counts:

1. ? Broad topic. Antarctica is a large landmass, but the absence of any permanent human habitation means that it necessarily omits most of the content which we have for other continents. Apart from coverage of the few bases and some exploration, there are no populated places, no sports, no religion, no culture, no arts, no education, no biographies, etc. I would say it's probably not a broad topc.
2. N High readership. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of 32 views per day is above the abysmal average, but still low. There are many stub articles which get that level of views.
3. N Lots of maintainers. The total of 4 selected articles is abysmally low, and they are all content forks. They have been chaged since their creation in 2008 only for reorganisation purposes.

I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as per User:Newshunter12 and BHG. Too few articles (4 instead of 20) and no maintenance since 2014 (and only minimal maintenance then). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly a broad topic, 16 thousand articles in scope. I have updated the four subpages, and created 22 more for good measure. All 26 are now selections from featured articles, and none of them are forks, because they automatically reflect any changes in the article. I am one of the maintainers of this portal. There is an active WikiProject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)