Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Antarctica

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 03:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Antarctica


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 This is yet another a long-abandoned micro-portal, whose selected articles consist of only 4 outdated content forks.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:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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. --  Brown HairedGirl  (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)
 * @UnitedStatesian Spending less than 40 minutes slapping together some automated add-ons to stave off deletion does not make you a maintainer of this portal that has rotted for over a decade. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. And it also shows how easy maintenance is.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Touching a portal does not transform you into a maintainer. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Note to closer Editor UnitedStatesian is using a mendacious strategy of throwing wrenches into MfD'S through drive by edits and false claims like being a portal "maintainer." To be a maintainer is a long term and intense commitment only truly properly performed by someone who is an expert on the topic, not someone who just randomly shows up to stop a deletion because they like the idea of portals. Even if they were a maintainer, which they are not, they are lying claiming that there are "maintainers." It would just be them and no others. Automating portals is not a substitute for WP:POG's requirement that portals have large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has neither, and no Wikiproject is interested in this portal, as the over decade of abandonment shows. The last conversation between editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Antarctica was a 19 January 2016 comment and a 4 Feburary 2016 response. A notice about this MfD was also placed on the talk page five days ago, and yet no editors came here from the project. Please ignore UnitedStatesian's mendacious and false claims of being a maintainer and his implication that there is an active Wikiproject roaring to take this portal into their fold. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Broad topic area with some viewers. A trustworthy maintainer has been found. No reason to delete it now. --Hecato (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They are not a maintainer and have already made multiple provable falsehoods in this MfD, such as that their are (plural) maintainers, that Wikiproject Antarctica is actiive, and their implication that it is roaring to take this portal on. Your vote is not based in reality. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Note to closer Editor Newshunter12 apparently has not read the WP:POG guideline, which says nothing about "long-term and intense commitment", "expert in the topic" or any of the other important-sounding phrases he/she seems to me to have made up on the spot. Nor has he/she apparently read WP:AGF, or else doesn't know what "mendacious" means. And as to the claim that I am not a portal maintainer, I would point out that my number of Portalspace edits over the last 12 years is 3 times their total number of edits in the entire project. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Edits to portal space in general have nothing to do with being a maintainer of this portal, which you are not. Portals need steady serious maintenance for as long as they exist to be productive. That many editors like you don't take commitments to them seriously is why there are so many abandoned junk portals. I also never said POG demanded that real maintainers needed appropriate topic experience, only that proper portal maintenance/building is really only done by those with appropriate topic experience. Sadly, the Portals Project never built expertise into the portal guidelines itself, but that doesn't prevent me calling for it here. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We have an editor here actually arguing that having maintainers with expertise in the topic is not relevant. All apparently seriously, and without irony.
 * I really do hope that I have missed some hidden irony. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 28 August 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.