Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aesthetics

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. I don't think people should throw out accusations of paid editing without proof or relevance, but the argument provided does not really work anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Aesthetics

 * – (View MfD)

Stillborn portal. The creator and only substantial contributor of this portal, User:Gregbard, was indef blocked for copyright violations in 2014.

Twenty selected articles created in June 2009. Nine of these are unillustrated. One has a redlink. Not only have these 20 articles never been updated, but they lack even semi-automated edits and other drive-by edits.

Eight never-updated selected bios created in June 2009. Two lack photos, and the bio for Arthur Danto has not been updated with news of his death in October 2013. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Another highly-neglected portal.--Darwinek (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Absurd. The portal is a very important topic and must remain active. 2804:14D:78D3:89F8:2892:9CFD:241C:4947 (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, per WP:TNT, and per the fact there is no good reason to keep portals that are in this state. Low page views (40/day, compared to 1,754/day for Aesthetics) mean zero value is added by such a portal. Portals are not content, so any comparison to how broken articles are handled would be improper. The downgrading of POG cuts both ways - there is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is the unregistered editor here in order to insert links to a book by their client? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They have added a book as further reading, but since its author has an article and has written another book already listed in the same section, I see no real reason to suspect that they are being paid for adding it. Geolodus (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Aesthetics

 * Delete as per nomination by User:Mark Schierbecker.
 * Since the Portal Guidelines have been downgraded to the status of an information page and we have no real portal guidelines, we should use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense.  It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers.  This imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense:  (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintainers, at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained.  Any portal that does not pass this common-sense test is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.  Another portal by a blocked or banned editor.
 * No evidence of maintenance since 2013, and unmaintained portals are not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks?  I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Philosophy), without creating duplicate entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another narrow-topic portal created by a prolific but indiscriminate portal-creator, abandoned since long before the creator was blocked. Its narrow scope means no surprise that it has failed to attract either readers or maintainers.
 * A set of abandoned, outdated content forks does no favours to readers, who would be much better served by visiting the head article. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.