Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Disability

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Disability


In 2011 this portal boasted near-daily news updates. That level of care collapsed by the next year and has not picked up since. The Stephen Hawking entry, which claims he is alive and well, was created in 2012 and never updated. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have now updated the Hawking bio on the portal . More comments later... --Mirokado (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good work on the update, @Mirokado. However the fact that Hawking's death was not noted on the portal for 17 months until the portal was up for deletion is pretty clear indication of a lack of the ongoing maintenance which is required by POG. Note that Mirokado's edit to the page was the first edit in 7 years; that's abandonment. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, BrownHairedGirl. --Mirokado (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a viable reader-navigation tool.  Alternatively, Move to WikiProject Disability/Portal, as it has merit as an editor resource.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This portal has been abandoned for seven years, except for a burst of one-off updating in 2018 by Auric, as evidenced by the Stephan Hawking bio only being updated about his March 2018 death because of this MfD. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had seven years of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 22 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Disability having 1179 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I am strongly against allowing recreation, as a portal about this subject is clearly not warranted. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Portal:Disability as per nomination and as per analysis by User:Newshunter12. No maintenance for years, and only 22 daily pageviews.  The obsolete information is characteristic of portals using forked subpages, and illustrates that that architecture is unsound.  If another editor wants to create a version of this portal that does not use forked subpages, they know where Deletion Review is.  (And if they don’t know, click on the link.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, with prejudice against recreation. The long-term lack of maintenance makes this a clear fail of the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I am one of the original creators of the portal, and I did most of the news updates back then, I agree that this portal, in its current form, is not sustainable. However I do not support the idea that recreation should be prohibited - a new portal with a different architecture (per ) and using features such as e.g. automatically updating transclusions might be sustainable. Disability is indeed a very broad subject that could possibly sustain a different kind of portal. I support 's suggestion to archive it at the WikiProject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would advise against arguing at this time over the details of whether and when a new portal can be created. Any such discussion can be done in the future at Deletion Review.  (We also might have different portal guidelines in the future.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are wrong to point people wanting to re-create portals to DRV. DRV is concerned with whether *this* deletion process was done properly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @SmokeyJoe, your reproach to @Robert McClenon is mistaken.
 * See WP:DRVPURPOSE #3 "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page".
 * If an editor wished to present new evidence that a decent number of maintainers had been identified, and/or that some steps had been identified which could be demonstrated (rather than just asserted) to significantly increase page views, then that would be "significant new information", and a DRV would be justified. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Roger has said it perfectly. I have archived one conversation from the portal talk to the project talk archives since it is relevant to the development history of project templates too. --Mirokado (talk) 21:07, 19 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.