Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Death

 __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. The argument that this portal fails WP:POG (in particular, for not having any maintainers) is a for more compelling argument than the Keep !voters have advanced. In addition, it doesn't appear that any substantial maintenance has happened to this portal throughout the course of this MfD, contrary to the claim made by User:UnitedStatesian. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 03:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Death


Stillborn portal. Four never updated selected articles created in January 2010. All DYK from 2010. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a high-viewing low-maintenance portal. As User:Mark Schierbecker says, it has not been updated in nine years, and has only five articles, counting generously.  However, it had 129 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 19, and 143 daily pageviews in Jan-Jun 19, as opposed to 2395 for Death in Jan-Feb 19.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – The portal has received 4,282 page views in the last thirty days, as of this post. North America1000 03:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note statistical games The pageviews have been listed above in daily averages, which facilitates comparison between periods of different length. It is therefore very odd, and thoroughly misleading, that NA1K has chosen yet again to cite the total number of pageviews for a period, preventing comparison.  NA1K has done this before, and has been asked to desist from it, so I don't know whether the repetition is wilful disruption (hoping to mislead by citing a bigger number) or a failure to comprehend simple statistics.
 * Whatever the cause, I urge NA1K to correct their post to show the daily average for her chosen period, which is 136 views per day.-- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A problem with relying upon the average page views as a statistic is that this method consistently misrepresents the views a page actually receives, to a lower-than-actual number. For example, when multiplying the average page views of 138 x 30 days, the total is 4,140 views. However, the actual page views are 4,282, 142 more than using the average. I feel that the actual page views are also worthy of consideration. North America1000 05:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * NA1K, I want to try to say this with as much civility as possible, and finding the right words is difficult. So please excuse me if this appears harsher than might be ideal.
 * These are statistics, used for comparison with other statistics. Average them against a common time base of one day allow them to be compared with the data for other time periods and for other pages.  The rounding effect which you note applies to all the other daily viewing figures, so it does not prejudice the comparison which is the sole point of these numbers.
 * It is apparent that you have very limited comprehension of simple maths and basic statistics. I hope that you do not intend to be disruptive, but your pursuit of high \numbers without regard to basic statistical principles which you seem not to grasp is disruptive. So I ask you as kindly as I can to please just stick to the consistent measure, which is daily averages, even if you do not understand why averages are the most appropriate tool for comparison. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 06:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, my comprehension of math if fine. I understand your point of view, but I am dropping the subject. My experience in the usage of statistics is derived from a college-level of experience and applications in performing empirical research. North America1000 06:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the interest of keeping this short so the discussion can move forward in an easier manner, I have initiated a discussion on BHG's talk page regarding the statistics matter. North America1000 07:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've replied at the talk page discussion, where I've agreed to the status quo of posting average daily page views when posting in the future; no disruption intended. As such, I struck the content in my first comment as well. North America1000 15:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nom. While it's true this portal has a much higher viewing rate than most other portals at 143 per day from January 1 to June 30 2019, it still fails other parts of WP:POG, which states portals should be about a "broad subject area, which is likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." (Emphasis mine) This portal has been abandoned for the last 9 years, and is 16 articles short of POG's minimum requirement of 20 articles.
 * High viewing rates are a big negative when the information being displayed is outdated or inaccurate, such as with this portal. How much damage has been done to Wikipedia's reputation for quality when readers saw this junk portal, we will never know. One off maintenance is not enough to stave off deletion. This portal would need a large team of maintainers to meet WP:POG and it doesn't have it as Nine years of hard evidence shows, so it is time to delete it. Remember, crud, even high viewed crud, is still crud. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure yet, but alarmed by the issues raised. In the January–June 2019 list of pageviews per portal, this one is ranked 27th, with 143 views per day.
 * That places it in the top 3.33% of portals ranked by pageview.
 * And its pageviews since stats began in 2015 show an average of 170 views/day.
 * As such, it is in principle a portal which readers seem want in non-trivial numbers, and which I would probably want to keep, because 100 pageviews/day is probably near the point where the slim benefits of our abysmally-designed portals begin to outweigh its costs.
 * However, I note with alarm the nominator's analysis of neglect. It is very disappointing to see that even such a well-viewed portal has been so neglected; that casts doubt on the assumption underlying POG, viz. that more views will bring more maintainers.
 * So I will do a review of the poral tomorrow, before making up my mind on whether to follow my current inclination to support a WP:TNT deletion with conditional permission for re-creation.
 * BTW, I note that the WikiProject Death has not only escaped the inactive tag borne by so many projects, but appears to have some actual discussions on its talk page (which is sadly rare). So this one meets the WP:POG requirement that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal".  But again, the assumption underlying the POG guidance is not borne out by the decade of neglect.
 * But whatever we decide about this individual portal this throws up big systemic issues. If even a top 3.3%-by-pageviews portal with an active WikiProject and a global focus on a major life theme can rot for a decade, then we have a systemic problem with all portals which requires a broader discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Notification: WikiProject Death has been notified.. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Move (no redirect) to WikiProject Death/Portal.
 * As a navigation tool, it is inferior to the article Death and redundant to that article combined with category:Death.
 * It contains worthy investment, so move into the WikiProject for re-use, but to make it useful it needs to be integrated into a function Portal, namely one or more of the mainpage portals (probably under both Portal:Science and Portal:Society). It's current location, as hidden portal, limits it.
 * It competitively detracts from the article death. Portals should reflect their article, not overtake their article.  I guess that editors are confused about the purpose of portals.
 * Do not delete, as this is clearly a third tier portal that may be restructured into something that works. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This portal is well-viewed per the above, the scope is certainly broad enough for improvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's well-viewed only by the abysmal standards of portals. The January–June 2019 daily average of 143 views for the portal is only 5.9% of the 2,409 daily average for the head article.
 * The scope for improvement has always been there. But given the widespread abandonment of portals, there is clearly a massive shortage of portal maintainers. So matter how broad the scope, there is no reason to keep the portal unless there are positive reasons to believe that it is actually going to  be maintained in the future.
 * @Knowledgekid87, do you have any evidence that this is going to suddenly start being mainatined? --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete without prejudice to a redesigned portal that does not use forked subpages. This is a well-viewed but poorly maintained portal, and the model of using forked subpages makes portals even more dependent on consistently perfect maintenance than they should be.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Relist to see if the advocates of portals can offer constructive ideas about the redesign of portals including this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep A borad enough subject area, has an active WikiProject, issues raised by the nominator seem to have been resolved by maintenance while this MfD was open. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:46, 27 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.