Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Design

 __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. bd2412 T 19:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Design

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected portal. Stylistic choices used to design and illustrate the portal have aged horribly.

Five selected articles. Two were created in February 2010 and never updated until July 2016. Three were created in July 2016 and never updated. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, concurring with notes by User:Mark Schierbecker.
 * Since the Portal Guidelines have been downgraded to the status of an information page and we have no real portal guidelines, we should use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense.  It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers.  This imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense:  (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintainers, at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained.  Any portal that does not pass this common-sense test is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
 * Portal was originated by an editor who only ever made five edits, all on 27 March 2006. Portal was not so much stillborn as delivered by an unlicensed midwife.
 * Portal had 35 average daily pageviews in first half of 2019, which is not bad for a portal, but head article had 1139 average daily pageviews.
 * It isn't entirely clear what the topic of the portal is meant to be, since design encompasses a multitude of technical and artistic activities, and the portal seems to try to do all of them, without really doing any of them. The portal also looks like a lot of white space, and a design portal should look like something worth looking like.
 * Common sense says: Just delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, and per the fact there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Ironic, though perhaps fitting for how portalspace has been, that Portal:Design should have such awful design. Low page views and the condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, being for navigation instead, so it is improper to try to compare dilapidated and useless portals to articles and say they should just be fixed. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised at the last minute just to stave off deletion. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve potentially inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep There's really no reason to delete this. There are multiple projects dedicated to varying aspects of Design (Wikiproject Industrial Design, for instance.) Portal needs a bit of a redesign, but I quite like the layout, to be honest. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Broad topic, cleanup is not a solution to deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was going to !vote Keep on this one as the Design portal is essentially a "mega-navbox", a type of portal that I have met which in some cases can have a useful function, and doesn't date/fork so badly if neglected.  Unfortunately, that was before I found that the Main article "Design Navbox" is much more comprehensive and updated (it is really and excellent Navbox), and therefore this Portal, which has little else to offer and maintained by nobody, is of little use.  Probably why it is now abandoned by readers and editors alike (despite the fact that there are several active WP Design-based Project groups on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the !voters above to delete. Yet another long-abandoned portal which is redundant to the excellent navbox Template:Design, which has the huge advantage that it is (or should be) on transcluded on every article in its set, rather than requiring  a visit to a separate page.
 * Given the reference above to multiple WikiProjects within the scope of the portal, I checked the backlinks from Wikipedia talk namespace. The results are mostly the result of project banners linking to the portal; only 4 are actual mentions in discussion. This merely underlines the portal's orphan status.  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)