Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Hunger relief

 __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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Hunger relief

 * – (View MfD)

Misconceived, abandoned-since-birth-in-2013 mini-portal with low readership of only 12 views per day in Jan–June 2019. Has only 12 selected topics, all redundant content forks (8 articles + 4 biogs), which is only 60% of POG's minimum of 20. It also has a set of 3 fake DYKs. Only two of those fifteen pages have any edits since the day of their creation, and those were trivial edits (see Selected article/3 and Selected article/4).

Note that the Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Hunger relief misleadingly shows a big set of sub-pages, because the creator made blank sub-pages up to number 20 for each of the three sets of sub-pages. This would have been helpful to anyone who tried to expand the portal (if they had ever appeared), but it means that reviewers need to be aware that the list of 95 sub-pages includes 41 blanks.

The portal was created in 10 June 2013‎ by, who paid it little attention thereafter; I have found only a handful of edits by NA1K to the portal after 10 June 2013‎. NA1K is a prolific participant at WP:POG, so it's very hard to AGF that NA1K appears to have been unaware that since late 2006 the lead of WP:POG has warned "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create."

It was so severely abandoned that in November 2018‎ it was one of the portals converted by @The Transhumanist (TTH) to a semi-automated format. This version was very slow to load, because it had to process so many pages, so in April 2019‎  restored a non-automated version. And there it remains, basically as created on 10 June 2013‎, but with some formatting changes.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This fails on all three counts:
 * 1)  Broad topic . Clear fail. The head article is Hunger, to which Hunger relief is a redirect. This small subset of the topic is so narrow that it doesn't even have a category: Category:Hunger relief is a redlink, though there is the much narrower Category:Hunger relief organizations.  The broader topic of hunger might have made a better portal, because it could include Category:Famines, Category:Deaths by starvation and Category:Malnutrition.  However, after 6 years, nobody has shown any interest in remedying the creator's misjudgement and building that broader portal. (Portal talk:Hunger relief shows zero discussion).
 * 2)  High readership .  Clear fail. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 12 views per day is trivially low.  It is only twice the median of 6 views/day of the hidden tracking category Category:CatAutoTOC generates no TOC, which is linked only from lots of v-low-view categories, and since it's a WP:HIDDENCAT it is visible only to logged-in-editors who have enabled "view hidden" categories in their preferences.
 * 3)  Lots of maintainers . Clear fail. No maintainers except the creator, apart from formatting edits to the main portal page, and the trivial edits to the two articles, and the failed automation.

Note that WP: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". The portal clearly fails this test too: nobody has added new material, and AFAICS, no such project exists: the list of 5 WikiProjects at Talk:Hunger shows nothing directly relevant, and the following titles are all redlinks: WP:WikiProject Hunger, WP:WikiProject Hunger relief, WP:WikiProject Famine.

It is worth noting the exceptionally poor state of the fake DYKs. Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this six-year-old list would lose the newness even if it was DYK-based. So it is a pure trivia section, none of whose entries has ever been subjected to the scrutiny and verification process of WP:DYK:
 * Portal:Hunger relief/Did you know/1 is about A Place at the Table, which was never part of WP:DYK.
 * Portal:Hunger relief/Did you know/2 is wholly unlinked. This means that the facts asserted are definitely not referenced even in a linked article.  The portal has been abused as a vehicle for publishing unsourced content, contrary to the core policy of WP:V.
 * Portal:Hunger relief/Did you know/3 is about Food banks. That too  was never part of WP:DYK, and the cited statistic on foodbank usage is now 6 years out of date.

I oppose re-creation of this portal, even under the broader title of "Hunger". The topic would still be narrow, and there would still be no relevant WikiProject ... and after the total lack of interest in maintaining this portal, there is zero evidence that the slightly broader topic would attract maintainers.

I also hope that the creator will refrain from their previously common tactic of a drive-by makeover on which a claim is made that the portal is now maintained. Portals need ongoing, long-term maintenance, not a drive-by "fix" from a creator who abandoned their creation for 6 years, and who recently had signed themselves as the "maintainer" of no less than 42 portals ( Afghanistan, Belarus, Belize, Biochemistry, Coffee, Colorado, Companies, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Evolutionary biology, Food, Free and open-source software, The Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Housing, Hungary, Islands, Italy, Kuwait, Liquor, Lithuania, Moldova, Money, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Oman, Ontario, Panama, Physics, São Tomé and Príncipe, Somalia, Supermarkets, Tanks, Vietnam) ... although they did rightly remove themself from most of that list after criticism of is credibility. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator,  Brown HairedGirl . Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to an abandoned Bonsai portal that was dumped right after creation. I oppose re-creation, as over six years of hard evidence shows Hunger relief is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers, and there is no closely associated WikiProject for this topic. This portal is a solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – This portal was created as a personal favor to back in June 2013, who requested that I create a portal for the topic. Its creation was certainly performed entirely in good faith. While I'm glad to have created the portal for a user who is passionate about the topic of hunger relief and involved in hunger relief efforts in real life, and who felt that a portal for the topic had merit, I understand that it may be deleted. North America1000 02:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @NA1K, when you accepted the request, did Feyd commit to maintain the portal?
 * One way or another, the creation should not have happened unless someone was committed to maintain it. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep / don't salt Hunger relief is a hugely broad topic. United Nations figures show close a billion people currently suffer from chronic hunger. Millions of people are engaged in efforts to relieve this, and there are millions of sources on the topic. Like all portals, this seems like it could be a useful alternative navigational aid for our readers. However, the noms points 2) & 3) are correct, so I guess no great loss if the article is deleted. Any misjudgement in the portals creation was mine (not Norths').If I'd guessed how much contention was going to occur over portals I'd never have requested it. That said I strongly object to blocking future re-creation.  Right now not many seem motivated to work on hunger topics, but this may change in the future and there's no need to add obstacles to recreating the portal if/when there's evidence it would be more useful. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @FeydHuxtable, I don't doubt that hunger relief is a major issue in this world. Far too many of the world's population endure huger while others have plenty.
 * However, the fact remains that this topic lacks the conditions required for creation of a Wikipedia portal. There is not much coverage of it on Wikipedia,  there are no maintainers, it has failed to attract readers, and there is no associated WikiProject.  If at some point in the future, all those issues have been resolved, then a DRV can be opened at which that new evidence can be presented. However, no re-creation should happen without some sort of review to establish that the conditions have been satisfied.
 * Many hundreds of portals have been created on the basis you set out, that this is a major topic in the world. However, they have failed as portals, and been deleted because they lack the required combination of extensive coverage, lots of readers, multiple maintainers, and an associated WikiProject. These include  many whole countries, great cities, huge religious movements, massive and long-standing military forces, etc.  Time and time again, those portals became abandoned relics with few readers.  Editors who created portals have repeatedly underestimated the breadth of topic required.
 * As to NA1K's actions in creating it, each editor is obliged per WP:MEATPUPPET to make their own independent judgement on the suitability of actions they perform, even if requested by another. Nothing in what either you or NA1K has said here suggests that either of you had any commitment to maintaining the portal, so NA1K simply should not have created it. NA1K may have acted in good faith in creating it, but good faith is not enough; good judgement is also required, and that good judgement was absent here.
 * I note that you describe this page as an article. It isn't, so different conditions apply. Your agree that at least two of the required conditions for a portal  have not been met, so I see no basis for your recommendation of even a "weak keep". --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that other big topics have failed to attract the needed maintainers; it's consoling it's not just hunger relief. Per my lack of experience with portal related deletion policy, you've made me doubt my weak keep vote, so I've struck it.


 * On the other hand, continued arguments that NA1K was wrong to create this portal seem spurious. WP:MEATPUPPET is largely irrelevant as even back in 2013 we were both far from new editors, and we don't know each other off wiki. There doesn't seem to be anything in policy saying there needs to be a commitment to maintain prior to creation. (Perhaps that's a reasonable unwritten rule now, but back in 2013 portals were less controversial.)  Additionally, before requesting the portal,  I'd created or expanded many hunger relief related articles, and had mentioned on wiki that I've a life long interest in the field. It would have been entirely reasonable to assume I'd be likely to continue working on the portal.  We're volunteers & don't generally work on the bases of explicit commitments. I understand there's some history & a wider context here, but I can't believe North is being attacked for helping out an editor in a perfectly policy compliant way.  Personalising these discussions should generally be avoided. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @FeydHuxtable, thanks for striking your keep. That's a welcome demonstration of good faith.
 * I disagree about the relevance of MEATPUPPET. NA1K had a responsibility to exercise independent judgement, and I still see no evidence that such judgement was made.
 * Your assumption that the requirement for maintenance is an unwritten rule is demonstrably false. The words "Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance" were added to WP:POG in this edit on 3 August 2006, and have been part of the guidance ever since.  The current version omits the word "regular", and now reads "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create.". I explained this fact in the nomination, and took care to explicitly quote the guideline, italicising it to distinguish it from my own words. I am very disappointed that you have gone two rounds here in defiance of that long-standing headline guidance.
 * We can all make mistakes through speed-reading an XFD nomination, and having done that many times myself, I remedy my errors simply by apologising and correcting my response. I assume that your misreading was also made in good faith. Now that you are aware of the actual guidance, I hope that you will demonstrate that good faith by withdrawing the unfounded accusation of personal attack which you unwisely made on my talk page. -  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - First, we should avoid the trap of arguing over good faith. What happened here is that humanitarian good faith, devotion to a noble cause, and the desire to right great wrongs resulted in ignoring all rules and creating this portal without regard to portal guidelines in the interest of a greater purpose.  That doesn't mean that the portal should be kept.  It means that those who created it were acting in good faith.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl - Little-maintained and little-read portal. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Hunger relief shows 20 articles and 20 biographies, but most of them are empty stubs.  Only 12 are articles.  Is this good, as in a plan for future expansion, or bad, as in an attempt to look more complete?  It doesn't matter.   There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems.  Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, and including a maintenance plan (since lack of maintenance is a problem with most portals), can go to Deletion Review.
 * 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.