Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Basque Country (greater region)

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 04:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Basque Country (greater region)

 * – (View MfD)

Never completed old portal with red linked sections. 2 page views in 30 days suggests no one is more interested in reading this then anyone is in finishing it. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This portal was never alive, and is therefore a stillborn portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment  - Old portal, 17 subpages, created 2006-11-06 20:38:18 by User:Husond. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Basque Country (greater region). Pldx1 (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to Keep it. True, it's quiet but then that's hardly surprising in a topic with relatively few editors who have to spend a large amount of their on-site time chasing edit warriors spilling over from the Spanish wiki. It saps your energy. That and continued discussions about closing down portals, it's hardly is an incentive to editors to spruce up a portal site. In the past it has been useful and led to the creation of several new good pages. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - As is, this portal provides a grand total of ONE article, ONE biography and ONE picture. This cannot be described as an useful navigation tool. And it doesn't seem that anyone will come with any remedy. Pldx1 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. No opinion about deleting the portal, but it has the same problem as virtually all pages about the Basque Country: it assumes that the country has well-defined territorial limits, which is a huge lie. --Jotamar (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So this is a controversial topic? Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends on who you ask. But you have to be fairly far out of the mainstream to suggest that there isn't some linguistic-cultural-ethnic-thingy that connects Basque people. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I tried to say, there's no problem with the existence of some sort of Basque cultural area; the problem is with its exact geographical limits. Anyway, that's just tangential to the present discussion. --Jotamar (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, mildly so. What is the gain of deleting it really? The topic is relevant enough, with a wide number of related topics that may benefit from having a 'parent' page. Admittedly, it is not very functional at the moment, but may offer an scope for improvement in the future. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been around since 2006. When will this magically be improved? When will it start lulling readers exactly? Legacypac (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there's a mismatch in expectations? We (I mean most editors of Basque related topics) never saw it was a means of pulling in readers but as a "meeting space" for editors working on Basque articles to coordinate stuff like what articles are needed. In that sense the answer to your question is, help crack down on edit warriors sapping out time and energy and we'll have time and energy to tackle article creation again. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely, a portal with ONE article, ONE biography and ONE picture may offer an scope for improvement in the future. But it doesn't offer a navigation tool, as it should do. Pldx1 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You need a Wikiproject or taskforce in some other wikiproject. The portal will not help you with that. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Very funny, you assume we have the capacity to set up a wikiproject or taskforce. The portal is/was a quick way of doing that that required little overhead in setting it up. But by all means, keep honing Wikipedia into a place for the big guys only with lots of resources. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Akerbeltz, please see WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". Thanks for confirming that there was no intention for it ever to fulfil that core purpose. As Legacypac noted, the way to create a meeting place is to set up a Wikiproject or taskforce in some other wikiproject. It's not hard. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs)


 * Keep Quite frankly, we should be directing our energy to improving instead of destroying - that's how we built this encyclopedia in the first place. This portal has obviously seen much better days - and I was surprised to see all those red links - but that's no reason to delete. If anything, its mere existence is an invitation for someone to come in the future and breathe some new life into it. Hús  ö  nd  11:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Husond, it's a pity that you didn't disclose that you created this portal and then abandoned it.
 * As I set out below, this portal has been abandoned for over 11 years. I see no evidence that it has ever seen much better days; the content simply hasn't been there.
 * As to the notion that its mere existence is an invitation for someone to come in the future and breathe some new life into it, the evidence of 11 years abandonment is very clear that this sort of "fix my abandoned page" invitation has not worked, just as it has not worked for the hundreds of other abandoned portals which have been brought to MFD in recent months. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You almost make it sound like I left this portal in a basket on the doorstep of an orphanage. Thank you for reminding me that yes, I did create it. It was a time where there was greater involvement of the community in smaller projects like this, and where the spirit of improving rather than destroying was the driving force for growth of this entire place. You fail to provide a valid reason for having this portal deleted - other than what appears to be a personal pet hate. If we had less of that attitude around here driving away contributors then perhaps portals wouldn't lie abandoned. Hús  ö  nd  20:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Husond, you left the portal as barebones start on which others could build. But nobody has built, so it remains just a shell.  That's no criticism of you, just a fact that nobody picked up the baton.
 * This 2018 MFD did not cause the neglect. It's the other way around; eleven years of neglect triggered the MFD. The reason for the neglect is simple enough: hard anyone reads portals. In nearly all cases, the head article gets between 100 and 2,000 more views than the portal.  See the daily pageviews for Jan–Feb 2019: Portal:Basque (as it was the called) got 10 views per day, but the article Basque Country (greater region) got 1,213 pageviews per day.
 * It's a pity that you choose to personalise the discussion. 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 Basque Country (greater region).  This abandoned portal does not enhance, so that is the reason for deletion. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a pity that you choose to personalise the discussion, which forces me to also personalise the discussion. Anyway, again, still no valid reason to delete, just ranting and personal opinions. Hús  ö  nd  00:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete These sub-/trans-national reqions do not meet the breadth-of-subject area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic has sufficient scope for a portal. Clearly needs a lot of work but if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Editing can improve the page, so there's no policy-based reason for deleting it as far as I can see. WaggersTALK  14:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not so. WP:DEL-CONTENT says very clearly "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases".
 * This a severe case. As noted below, it is just a slim set of decade-old abandoned WP:REDUNDANTFORKs.
 * If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off to start afresh, without this relic in the way. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - This fake portal shows no more than ONE snippet of an article, ONE snippet of a biography and ONE picture. Great occasion for User:Waggers for saying Clearly needs a lot of work ... while implying "but surely not by me, don't dream too much". A portal is required to provide a navigation tool, but who cares ? How many readers would be sufficiently foolish to look at a Wikipedia portal ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've said above, all of that can be remedied by editing, and that's what the deletion policy says we should do. If the portal survives this deletion attempt I'll be happy to review and expand the selected content. W<b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  08:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice to re-creation. Old portal created in November 2006‎.  It has a minimal set of subpages (see Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Basque Country (greater region)) which have been abandoned for over 11 years:
 * Portal:Basque Country (greater region)/Selected picture, same image since 2007
 * Portal:Basque Country (greater region)/Selected biography, same topic since 2007
 * Portal:Basque Country (greater region)/Selected article, same topic since Feb 2008
 * WP:POG requires that portasl be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". WP:POG says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly.   Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 130 consecutive updates.
 * In theory, this a broad topic. But in practice, it doesn't meet the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers
 * It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the magical thinking that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern curated portal without content-forked sub-pages, as has recently been done with Portal:Geophysics, or a curated list of topics, such as Portal:Harz Mountains. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.