Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Education

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [converse] || 03:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Education


Stillborn portal. Eight never-edited selected articles carbon dated to 2006. Portal:Education/Selected_article/9 is from 2016. All six selected educator entries are from 2006. Seymour Papert entry is outdated. He died in 2016. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade, aside from stray edits to the main page. 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 over a decade of no steady maintainers and it had only 73 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Education had 10098 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 oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Education is not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a broad enough target to meet the WP:POG guideline. The issue on the Seymour Papert subpage took literally seconds to apply a permanent fix, so now the portal has a maintainer, too.  The viewership is 73 per day over the six month period, two important words that were initially omitted above. Has a dedicated WikiProject, as recommended in the WP:POG guideline (though the nominator apparently sees no reason they deserved to be to talkpage notified).  Was a featured portal at the time that process was in place.UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:31, 20 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) 19:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:UnitedStatesian is waving a dead rat as if to claim that the portal is free of rats. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, you came up with that just for me? And nope, I'm just showing how easy ridding it of the rest of the (current and future) rats would be. Beleive it or not, you could actually help! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of readers and portal maintainers. That is a three-part test.  However, we have seen that arguing a priori that a subject area is broad does not necessarily result in broad portal coverage.  This portal has 15 articles (less than 20) via content-forked subpages, which are a ratty design.  Is there a plan to re-architect the portal and to expand its coverage?  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a portal that is needed.Catfurball (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to a design that does not use forked subpages. The only permanent fix to obsolete subpages is to get rid of forked subpages.  Too little breadth of coverage and too little maintenance.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per UnitedStatesian. Easy to fix and an extremely broad topic area that definitely should have a navigation and showcasing hub. --Hecato (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, and redirect to Education, but without prejudice to a design that does not use forked subpages, if it is supported by a team of maintainers and by the WikiProject'.
 * The portal as it stands is a disgrace: an abandoned hulk, to which readers are being lured at a rate of over 50 per day. That's >50 readers every day lured away from the fine head article Education to a page which hasn't even avoided rotting, never mind being subject to the ongoing scrutiny, editing and debate which the head article gets.
 * WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Education is a broad topic, but this has clearly failed the requirement to have maintainers. POG also guides 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 this case WP:WikiProject Education takes no interest in the portal. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 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.