Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bridges

 __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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Bridges

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected portal.

Ten selected articles: Six from October / November 2012, one from October 2007, one from October 2009, one from July 2010, one from 2012 that was automated in July 2019.

Seven selected articles: four from October / December 2012, one from October 2007, one from October 2009, one from July 2010. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for nearly seven years, save for two pictures added in 2016 and one article that was automated in 2019, all by passing editors. Since 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Blanchardb, who last updated it in Oct. 2009 and last edited Wikipedia in July 2016. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This abandoned portal has had nearly seven years of no steady maintainers and it had a low 52 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Bridge had 815 views per day in the same period, which is not enough to sustain a portal).
 * POG also states portals should be associated with a Wikiproject, but WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels is best described as semi-active (the last editor to editor conversation was in 2018), and the only two mentions specifically of the portal were a 2007 conversation about creating it and a 2012 post mentioning some updating has been done and for help/suggestions to get it to Featured Portal status, but it got no response. 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 seven years of hard evidence shows Bridges are not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Three Transport Portals
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete – This is a well-viewed but poorly maintained portal. I concur with the analyses by User:Mark Schierbecker and User:Newshunter12.  There was a very incomplete attempt to convert this portal from a forked subpage design to the use of transclusion, which converted one of the 17 articles.  This was a good approach to begin improving the design of this portal.  It still needs at least three more articles, conversion of the other subpages to transclusion, and a more consistent maintenance plan to be worth considering keeping.  Until then, delete.
 * Delete as clearly serving no useful purpose and not a portal which any reader is ever likely to use. Very few if any people are interested in "bridges" as a general topic; those people who do have an interest are interested either in a specific type of structure or in the bridges in a specific area or crossing a specific body of water, and in either case will be navigating via categories or inter-article links and aren't going to find a general "bridge" portal of any interest. Note that I'm commenting as the author of 6 of the 20 current Featured Articles on bridges. (I also disagree with "well-viewed", above; |User_talk:Iridescent this portal consistently gets about $1/4$ of the views of my user talk page.) &#8209; Iridescent 15:41, 5 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:Transport + Portal:Infrastructure), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 6 September 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.