Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jerusalem

 __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) 23:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Jerusalem


Abandoned, broken mini-portal.

Created in May 2013‎ by, who last edited in 2015.

Converted in January 2019‎ by  which built its "selected articles" list from from 3 navboxes. Emoteplump was blocked 2 day later as sockpuppet.

Restored on 1 April 2019‎ by @UnitedStatesian to its pre-automation state by @UnitedStatesian.

However, that format is broken. Most refreshes just show a set of redlinks, because the portal is configured to look for 5 Selected biography sub-pages and 5 Selected article sub-pages ... whereas Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Jerusalem shows that there are no biog sub-pages just two article sub-pages:
 * Portal:Jerusalem/Selected article/2, same topic as when created in 2016 by @RusdianaDablang, who last edited in 2017
 * Portal:Jerusalem/Selected article/4, also same topic as when created in 2016 by @RusdianaDablang

The portal has:
 * a box for a biographies section, but no biog sub-page has never existed
 * a box for a news section, but Portal:Jerusalem/News has never existed
 * a box for a DYK section, but Portal:Jerusalem/Did you know has never existed

The articles portal could be tweaked to display only two sub-pages which actually exist, but that would still leave it as a useless page, falling miles short of the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Jerusalem.

The portal meets the broad scope criterion of WP:POG, but it abysmally fails the core point of POG, its lead, which currently reads [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines&oldid=894467601 Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create.]

Similar wording has been in place for over 12 years. The lead of the September 2006‎ version says [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines&oldid=73728473 Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance.]

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Get rid of this broken thing. It has an average of 12 daily pageviews, which is more than some portals, and more than this one should have.  The head article has a daily average of 5,434 daily page views.  Portals should only be created by editors who are ready to maintain them themselves, and should not be kept to wait for portal maintainers.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete:
 * Portals require active maintenance and curation to fulfil their purpose.
 * Compounded by portal abandonment, users are clearly using other features such as the MediaWiki preview function to enhance their browsing experience, as evidenced by the page views of the portal compared to the head article.
 * Currently the portal does not have a large enough pool of articles, however it is plausibly broad enough for a portal, therefore this is without prejudice to recreation and continued curation or automatic maintenance should a maintainer materialise.
 *  SITH   (talk)   11:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – I've cleaned up the red link problems. Regardless, the portal is rather bare bones. North America1000 13:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No prejudice against recreation of a curated, functional portal. A broad enough topic to meet WP:POG's broad subject area criteria. North America1000 14:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Nothing here beyond a re-cut of the main artice+navbox. Thankfully the main article is in good shape (unlike other portal discussions), however the abandonment of the portal means that it will only detract from the integrity of the main article over time in the eyes of the reader. We need to focus our stretched editing resources, not spread them even thinner. Britishfinance (talk) 10:54, 18 May 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.