Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ancient Germanic culture

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Ancient Germanic culture

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected portal.

One selected article created in July 2007 and updated in March 2008. Six never-updated selected articles (aside from this irrelevant addition) created in March 2008. One never-updated selected article created in May 2008.

Eight never-updated selected Runic inscriptions created in May 2008. One created in March 2013. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as per User:Mark Schierbecker - This portal had |32 average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, which is more than some portals, but is not comparable to the 2053 for the main article.
 * As noted by nominator, the portal has 8 general articles and 9 runic inscriptions, most of which were content-forked in 2008, none of which are more recent than 2013, most of which have not even been tweaked since then.
 * The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore 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.  (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.)  Common sense 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 selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (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 maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies).  Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable.  Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
 * The backlinks can be sent to Portal:History and to Portal:Germany.
 * No recent maintenance, and not many articles to maintain.
 * Delete per the nom. The portal has been abandoned for over a decade, save a small one-off addition in 2013. Had a very low 38 views per day in the 3rd quarter of 2019, which is a significant long term decline from the 78 views per day it had in the third quarter of 2015. The portal's intro also has significant POV issues and reads at times like an opinionated high school essay, and has done so for over a decade. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:42, 20 November 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 a bot (BHGbot 4) which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries.
 * In this case I agree with Robert McClenon that the appropriate new links would be to Portal:Germany + Portal:History. Alternative suggestions welcome. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 07:32, 22 November 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.