Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York (2nd nomination)

 __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 believe this is rather well summed up by User:Robert McClenon's comments. Since there are no guidelines or policies that deal with portals, we must simply use common sense when determining what to do with individual portals. There seems to be rough consensus that this portal covers an overly narrow topic area, gets extremely low viewership (3 views per day are probably just search engine bots in most cases), is not frequently updated or maintained by anyone, and is entirely duplicative of an existing navigation template at Template:Briarcliff Manor, New York. I didn't find any compelling rationale in the keep votes to override the nearly 2-to-1 ratio of delete votes, as most of the keep votes focused on their perception that this is an example of a well-constructed portal. The only interesting argument on the Keep side is that the navigation template doesn't display on mobile browsers. However, considering the portal gets virtually zero views per day on any type of browser, it doesn't appear to be a viable solution to that problem.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 15:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

I'm not really understanding why this page was kept in the last nomination. It describes a village of fewer than 10,000 people; not really a broad topic by any metric. Sure, it has a good deal of history behind it, but what place doesn't? The small number of articles about this topic is suited perfectly fine by Template:Briarcliff Manor, New York, so I'm not really seeing the reason for this portal's continued existence. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I recognize that there are objections to the existence of portals in general, but if portals are allowed, then this is a model for good ones. Briarcliff Manor is among the best documented places on Wikipedia. This place is outside New York City and I with other NYC editors there have talked about this place and its wiki content as an example of excellent writing and a model for city coverage in Wikipedia. This is one of the best portals we have.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  14:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a policy based argument for keeping it. Good and Featured articles are being deleted/redirected all the time, despite their status. (Example 1, Example 2)
 * (This is also not one of our best portals, seeing as it failed the now deprecated featured portal status). Why? I Ask (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is the record of this portal failing featured portal review?
 * The policy based argument for keeping this is that it meets Portal/Guidelines, which I think is the best available guide for defining what a portal should be; and that no one has shown that it meets any particular deletion criteria. The deletion nomination rationales are that small towns cannot have portals, and that if there is a template with overlapping coverage then the template stays and the portal gets deleted. If there is a connection between those arguments and a Wikipedia policy then show it.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  02:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Portal/Guidelines is not a Wikipedia policy, as it quite clearly says at the top. Otherwise, I would cite that it has too narrow a scope. There are no policies about deleting portals, at all (as far as I know), so your argument is a bit silly. You're asking for a policy you know doesn't exist. Where is your policy for keeping this page?
 * And you're right about it not failing Featured Portal status; it actually failed before it even got that far (even worse). Why? I Ask (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I cite something documented while you are not linking to anything. Why do you feel that keep votes require a policy to keep but delete votes do not require a policy to delete?  Bluerasberry   (talk)  23:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither votes need a policy, but it's disengenuous to say that we should keep it based on a policy that doesn't exist. In lieu of there being no formal policies, we must use common sense. Portals are suppose to help the reader branch into articles. This portal that recieves less than five views a day and is incredibly narrow in scope is not helpful. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep as creator. can you let me know what has changed in two years? The portal is still a great example of understanding a community in a natural and easy way, unlike scanning through a list or category, or a template that does not display in mobile view. Do you have any guideline or policy to back deletion? Generally, this is required in order to delete something, not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I do not see anything applicable at Portal.  ɱ  (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Another element is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Does any small community like Briarcliff have an article on their fire department, like Briarcliff Manor Fire Department? Not that I've seen, but it makes it clear that it's possible for most any community. Population size doesn't matter, what matters is documentation in reliable sources. Given this, we can surmise that eventually, hundreds or thousands of towns and villages will have this level of Wikipedia infrastructure to support their articles. ɱ  (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff was deleted" is a valid argument since it reflects an active decision, unlike "other stuff doesn't exist", which reflects the lack of a decision being made. * Pppery * it has begun...  16:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, here's a few: Gordon Heights Fire Department · Idyllwild Fire Protection District · Oceanic H&L Company No. 1
 * I could theoretically create a portal about any city in the country, using the locations on the historical register, the few people that lived there, schools, etc. Most cities, even with populations below 10,000, have at least some notable topics surrounding them. But they are not sufficient means for having a portal. A navbox, template, or whatever serves the reader most better. The dismal views of this portal are proof (at least a third of the views only happened because of deletion discussions).
 * And there are no policies to cite, because all the main policies about deleting portals were basically deprecated, as far as I know. But considering the fact that every other small town portal was deleted and Briarcliff is the most niche city portal imaginable (at least compared to New York or London), it is not sufficiently broad enough to act as its own portal. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per the previous nomination; the "maintainer" has not made any changes to this portal other than reverting others' edits in over a year and every single "selected article" is already present at Template:Briarcliff Manor, New York. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, overly narrow focus, no maintenance. There is literally no way this portal can grow, and Portal:New York (state) covers it sufficiently. Neither of the "keep" votes above holds any water. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This meets available inclusion criteria and does not match any exclusion criteria that anyone has shown. What more are you expecting? Am I in error about this? I agree with some of what you say - this is narrowly focused on one city, and maintenance is as slow as this small town's development, but I do not see that as an issue. Portals can be small and stable.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  02:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This meets available inclusion criteria and does not match any exclusion criteria that anyone has shown. What more are you expecting? Am I in error about this? I agree with some of what you say - this is narrowly focused on one city, and maintenance is as slow as this small town's development, but I do not see that as an issue. Portals can be small and stable.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  02:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Why? I Ask asks why this portal was kept three years ago.  I will try to answer briefly.  It is well-maintained, and is a good slide show.  Also, some editors like portals.  Some editors apparently think that portals have some mystical value.  One of the reasons that I think that they must think that portals have mystical value is that they have, for more than three years, been unable to explain what the purposes of portals are.  The previous MFD should, in my view, have been closed as No Consensus.  The closer was wrong in saying that there was a consensus to Keep, but that isn't worth arguing about, and certainly not worth appealing to DRV.
 * In 2021, the portal had an average of 3 daily page views. The article had an average of 152 daily page views.
 * In 2020, the portal had an average of 3 daily page views. The article had an average of 166 daily page views.
 * In 2019, the portal had a median of 4 daily page views and an arithmetic mean of 9 daily page views. The skewness is explained by the deletion nomination.  The maximum daily number of page views was 138, on 18 March 2019.  The article had an average of 166 daily page views.
 * It is typical for a portal to have about 2% as many page views as the article. But some editors think that portals are good, which is probably because they are mystical.
 * There is no policy-based reason to keep this portal, and no policy-based reason to delete this portal, because there is no guideline on portals. During the 2019 portal wars, it was discovered by research that the long-used portal guidelines had never been properly adopted by consensus.  So I proposed an RFC to enact the unratified portal guidelines as guidelines.  There was a rough consensus against enacting the portal guidelines, so that they are a failed proposal, and there are no portal guidelines.  Having reread the failed proposal, it is still not clear to me why it was defeated, except that it appears that portal advocates do not want guidelines or restrictions on portals.
 * It's a well-maintained slideshow.


 * You're absolutely right about there being no policies about Portals. What's funny is that the two "Keep" voters are asking me to cite "Policies", despite the fact they know that there aren't any. I'm not opposed to Portals in general, but this Portal in particular is not useful to the readers. The dismal page views are probably even inflated by bot traffic or editors checking on backrooms. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete:
 * There are no applicable policies or guidelines on portals, and so there are no policies or guidelines that support keeping this portal.
 * The applicable policy is therefore Use Common Sense. A portal that is only viewed 3 times daily is not serving a useful purpose.
 * During the "portal wars" of 2019, even little-viewed portals were commonly viewed at least 20 to 25 times daily. A view rate of 3 views daily includes portal maintenance and bot searches, and so does not indicate any practical use at all.
 * Articles which are almost never viewed are not deleted for that reason, but articles have encyclopedic content which is lost or hidden by deletion. Portals do not have encyclopedic content but are merely a device for viewing encyclopedic content, and so are not useful if they are almost never viewed.
 * Delete - In the absence of a wikiproject especific about "Briarcliff Manor, New York", FAILS in WP:P "Providing bridges between reading and editing, and between the encyclopedia proper and the Wikipedia community, via links to pages in project space (and the other namespaces) that are relevant to the portal's subject."Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, good example of an well-developed area of Wikipedia.. Portals are basically a dormant area of the encyclopedia, and if that area wakes up again it would be good to keep all old portals around, easily viewable – and for now it is still interesting as a good example of a "complete" area of Wikipedia. The portal might fall afoul of future guidelines in its relatively small breadth, but that can be dealt with when (if) it comes around. — &thinsp;J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because something is well layed out or complete does not mean it's useful. This portal is not used by readers and has a narrow scope about a small village in New York. If it only serves to show other editors how to only *potentially* make new portals (which I doubt will ever happen given the fact that over half of all portals have been deleted since 2019), then that is not a good enough reason to keep. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would respond properly, but I think my previous comment pretty much summed up my viewpoint (basically, I don't see the point in deleting non-articles all too often). The portal wars never really did make a lot of sense. I think that portals do have the potential to be useful, but maybe they should move away from being mini-Main Pages. This is an area where we need a good discussion on it that leads to something. And preferably that discussion should not be a flamewar. It's late here, I may not be being coherent. — &thinsp;J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 10:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not against portals, as I think some are useful (e.g., Current Events, United States, etc.). But a Portal that is among the least viewed about an incredibly small town is not helpful. This Portal should be merged with New York or just outright deleted. And I don't think basing your vote on a potential, future discussion is all that good. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2022 (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.