Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Buckinghamshire

 __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. Despite the fact that this portal has an editor who has committed to maintaining it, there is still a strong consensus that the topic is far too narrow to support a useful portal. ‑Scottywong | [converse] || 19:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Buckinghamshire

 * – (View MfD)

This portal should be deleted for the following reasons:
 * There is no active maintainer for this portal
 * There is an average of 11 pageviews this year and this is only because it received loads of pageviews in 5 October and 6 October otherwise the average pageviews for this portal is 3 per day
 * As per previous deletion discussions regarding portals about English counties, there is consensus that they are not broad enough in order for them to have a portal
 * Buckinghamshire receives around nine times more pageviews in the last 30 days than this portal for the whole year
 * Portal:Buckinghamshire/Categories hasn't been updated since 2008
 * Portal:Buckinghamshire/Intro has been copied from Buckinghamshire
 * Portal:Buckinghamshire/News hasn't been updated since July 2008
 * There have been no nominations at Portal:Buckinghamshire/Nominate/Selected picture since July 2008
 * Portal:Buckinghamshire/Opentask hasn't been updated since July 2008
 * The only addition to this portal in the last ten years is Portal:Buckinghamshire/Selected pictures which has been created in June 2018
 * There are only 11 selected articles for this portal and only one good article out of the 11 selected articles which is Milton Keynes Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I just saw a list at Portal talk:Buckinghamshire of good articles and featured articles but the number of good and featured articles for this portal in total is not enough and doesn't justify why this portal should be kept. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:49, 14 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 think that the appropriate new links would be to Portal:South East England. Alternative suggestions welcome. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Abysmally low page views, very few articles, and spotty maintenance. The B-Class head article, Buckinghamshire, with its many rich and versatile navboxes, is all readers need to explore this topic. The portal is just a distraction from the far more useful to readers head article. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep There is an active maintainer for the portal - it's me, along with Portal:South East England and its other subportals. Yes there are some bits that need an update but those are content issues not existential issues, and the way to deal with those is either WP:SOFIXIT or to raise it on the appropriate talk page. It's time for this ideological portal deletion spree to stop. WaggersTALK  10:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the "reasons" given for deletion here are extremely spurious. Like most portals, much of the portal is automated - so if a new category is added under Category:Buckinghamshire it will be automatically included in the portal. The fact this automation was set up 10 years ago does not make the list of categories out of date now. It's worrying that this concept needs to explained. W</b><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  12:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, most arguments for deletion are on the list of arguments to avoid (WP:OUTDATED and WP:NOBODYREADSIT). Portal has a maintainer, is about a county in England (which means there is plenty of relevant content). News section hasn't been on the portal for a while, so it does not matter that it hasn't been updated. The subportal structure linking this portal to Portal:South East England is quite clever and reduces maintenance overhead while providing several more focused portals. I would suggest to hide Portal:Buckinghamshire/Opentask though, or to use a link to User:CleanupWorklistBot's list here instead of or in addition to a hand-curated list. —Kusma (t·c) 13:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral at this time, as explained below. The portal does have a maintainer, as can be seen either by the Portal maintenance status template or by the history, which shows that User:Waggers made an edit in May 2019, and that the portal has a design that does not require much visible maintenance. The maintenance is done (invisibly, maybe) in Portal:South East England, where the 21 general articles and 13 biographies are pulled from.
 * In the first half of 2019, the portal had | 7 average daily pageviews. The figure for the  year is, as noted by the nominator, influenced by repeated views on 5 October 2019 (very likely mostly by the maintainer).  The article had an average of 835 daily pageviews in the same period.
 * The portal, like other counties in England, is not attracting readers. However, I have difficulty in supporting an argument to Delete the portal when the argument is based on a flawed assumption that the portal is not being maintained.   Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a summary of the maintenance of this portal being done from Portal:South East England and some improvements that could be made regarding portal coverage for counties in the South East England:
 * One update to the Buckinghamshire section of Portal:South East England/Selections/Articles which was done after I nominated this portal for deletion and the previous update to this section was done in June 2018 (a more frequent update would be better)
 * One update to the Buckinghamshire section of Portal:South East England/Selections/Biographies which was also done after I nominated this portal for deletion and the previous update to this section was done in June 2018 (a more frequent update would be better)
 * Portal:Buckinghamshire/Selected pictures doesn't need to be updated everyday but a once a month update to select new images would be more ideal
 * Portal:Buckinghamshire/News needs to be updated weekly or monthly because viewers would want latest or recent news and not outdated news
 * My claim for "There is no active maintainer for this portal" is true because updating the portal once or twice a year is not active maintenance
 * Portal:South East England is perfect for covering a broad spectrum of information regarding counties in South East England so rather than having portals on different counties in the South East of England, we can keep Portal:South East England and have a weekly maintainer which can update and maintain the portal and delete the portals which are based on only counties
 * The only improvement I would suggest for Portal:South East England is to have a news section which can be updated weekly and this can cover the news for South East England
 * Regional portals are preferable because they are more broad and more information can be covered in them
 * Examples of regional portals include: Portal:North East England and Portal:North West England as well as Portal:South East England and this would cover much more information than county portals
 * Ideally portals should be maintained weekly and if this is not possible then at least monthly would be more ideally
 * To conclude, the information that is being covered in Portal:Buckinghamshire can be covered better in Portal:South East England and more information on other counties in the South East of England can be covered in the same portal Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is too narrow a topic to sustain a portal.  It has too few high-quality articles to sustain a portal: only 11 Category:FA-Class Buckinghamshire articles and 15 Category:GA-Class Buckinghamshire articles, some of which are too tangentially related to the topic to justify inclusion: e.g. Casino Royale (1967 film) doesn't even mention Buckinghamshire.
 * The level of maintenance seems poor, and edits done in the course of an MFD nomination are rarely an indication of an ongoing commitment to maintenance. The MFD archives are littered with discussions an MFD nomination prompted a flurry of activity which was not sustained, and the portal came back to MFD years later.
 * There is a WP:WikiProject Buckinghamshire, but I have just tagged it as inactive because apart from the notice of this MFD, the last human post was at WT:WikiProject Buckinghamshire in May 2019. Since the start of 2016, there have been only 6 new sections on that talk page, and since the talk page's creation in 2008 the only post ever which directly relates to the Buckinghamshire portal is the notice of this MFD.  So there is no WikiProject interest.
 * This narrow topic portal is now just a pet project of one lone editor, without wider interest from editors, readers or, its related WikiProject. Readers will be better served by the wider Portal:South East England, and as User:Newshunter12 rightly notes by the B-Class head article Buckinghamshire, with its many rich and versatile navboxes.  The pageviews indicate that readers are already voting with their feet, and find the portal redundant.  The daily median pageviews for this year is only 5 views/day, which is just about the level of background noise.
 * This is no surprise. The last 8 months of portal MFDs have repeatedly shown that sub-national portals rarely thrive, and this one is no exception. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete because there isn't sufficient material to support the portal and no progress towards finding any in the last 10 years, as evidenced by the fact that the select biographies and DYK are mostly trivia cherry-picked without regard to whether it's actually informative on the topic of Buckinghamshire (see Lofty Chiltern). Nemo 12:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete counties don't need a portal period.Catfurball (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep actively maintained and has an associated WikiProject, because it's properly maintained we should at least grant it a stay of execution until we determine which topics are notable enough for portals. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a pity that @SportingFlyer didn't read the discussion before posting. As I noted above, the WikiProject is inactive and has shown zero interest in the portal. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a pity that didn't read the discussion before bludgeoning another one of my keep !votes. A user has nominated themselves to maintain this portal. Please refrain from responding to any of my posts in the future or posting on my talk page. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did read the discussion. It seems that SF chose to overlook that several editors noted that much of the portal is unmaintained.  The existence of a lone maintainer is unrelated to the WikiProject, which shows no interest in the portal.
 * I will not refrain from noting that a !vote seems to be unsupported by the facts. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact is someone is willing to maintain this, and there are no guidelines for deletion. When it comes to these portal MfDs, whether we're voting to keep or delete, we are all tilting at windmills. Also, please respect my request going forward. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's one fact. The wider set of fact includes that a) the editor who is willing to maintain this actually says that they are already an active maintainer; b) the maintenance done is insufficient.
 * I will of course stay off your talk page, if you like; but since I have never posted there, it's an odd request. As to posts in a discussion, I will not be deterred from noting that a !vote appears to be based on incorrect statements such as that it's properly maintained. The nomination describes the flaws in maintenance in some detail. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Portals do not need daily maintenance, and it's flagrantly obvious from the page's history that Waggers has maintained the portal on multiple occasions, so saying it's not properly maintained is a lie. Also, I'm happy to ask for a two-way IBAN if you're not going to stop responding to me. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * SF I did not assert or imply that daily maintenance is needed, so that is a straw man. (I hope it was unintended).
 * Neither I nor anyone else has disputed that Waggers has maintained the portal on multiple occasions. That much is clearly true.  However, it is also true that Pkbwcgs has posted two detailed list of serious deficiencies in the maintenance.  So accusing me of a lie is a very odd claim, and a bizarre one on which to seek to seek a IBAN. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this and any related UK, or other countries', county/township/village/hamlet portals that may exist. This, in particular, is unmaintained in over a year. Its lack of attention reflects poorly on Wikipedia, with outdated content and other errors. It was probably created by a bot, so it can just as easily be re-created if and when a small team of editors come forward with a decent plan to maintain, and enhance, it on a semi-regular portal. Doug Mehus T · C  01:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * After the portalspam incident, there is no appetite for bot-created portals anymore. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , True, but I really hope we can get some sort of WikiPortal Council that would govern how bot-created portals could be created. That is, they'd require human maintainers and, perhaps, one idea might be to have number of portals any one administrator or editor could create and/or serve as coordinator or co-coordinator of at, say, 5 portals. That way, we'd permit bot-created portals, but each editor would be limited to the number of portals they could create and maintain. And, portal creation would not be automatic; it'd have to be approved by the WikiPortal Council. I would second your and BHG's nomination to be Chair and Vice Chair of the proposed Council. (You can work out who can be Chair and who can be Vice Chair between yourselves.)
 * The WikiPortal Council could have the power to declare portals inactive, meaning they could be deleted speedily after, say, 6 months.--Doug Mehus T · C  01:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's an ongoing discussion regarding portal guidelines and maintenance requirements - check with if you're interested. Also, I can't tell if the Chair/Vice Chair nomination is a joke given my noted desire to no longer interact with that user? As I've discussed above, I see no problem with keeping this for now as Waggers has been maintaining it, at least until we have those proper guidelines set up. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't mean it as a joke. I respect you both, and you both make great contributions. I was just thinking, sometimes pairing two people together who have different views (deletion versus inclusion) can provide a great balance, and, sometimes, results in a positive relationship going forward. Apologies if any offence taken though. Doug Mehus T · C  02:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't take on such a role, because I strongly oppose the whole principle of bot-created portals. Maybe a council to review any portal creation would be a good idea, but if it involved bots, I'd have no part.
 * And as SF has noted, the two us don't get on, so in this case the fine idea of collaboration across a divide would be unworkable. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. On bot-created portals, I wonder if I'm confusing bot-created portals and script-assisted portals? Certainly, one could probably write a script to assist them with creating the basic structure and layout of a portal but the actual creation would still be done by a human maybe?--Doug Mehus T · C  15:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * this really is way off topic for this MFD. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry, I'm bad for going off-topic. Should we move this thread sidebar thread from SF's "There's an ongoing discussion [...]" to here (inclusive) to Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Buckinghamshire?Doug Mehus T · C  16:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom and per user . Britishfinance (talk) 14:46, 21 November 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.