Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jharkhand

 __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 | [confess] || 04:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Jharkhand


Small portal on the Indian state of Jharkhand, abandoned since its creation in 2007, with low pageviews (in January–June 2019, it averaged only 9 views per day). Created in 2007, but its selected pages still only amount to a total of 13: 2 cities, 8 biographies and 3 articles, plus a single fake DYK. That's well short of the WP:POG minimum of 20 selected articles. And there is only one selected picture, so no rotation of images.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Jharkhand shows:
 * Portal:Jharkhand/Cities/1 and /2, both of which had only formatting changes since their creation in 2007
 * Portal:Jharkhand/Selected article/1, /2 and /3 have each had only trivial edits since their creation in 2007
 * Portal:Jharkhand/Selected biography/1, /2, /3, /4, /5, /6, /7 and /8 were all created in 2007.  Since they have all had only trivial edits (disambiguation, date unlinking etc).  All but /2 and /6 are BLPs, and the abandonment of the 6 BLPs leads to absurdities such as /1 saying of its subject that "he is currently ranked sixth in the official ICC cricket rankings for batsmen in Limited over internationals (as of April 12, 2007)".
 * Portal:Jharkhand/Did you know has only ever had one item, added in 2007. It has no connection to WP:DYK, so it is just WP:TRIVIA.

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 at least two of the three counts:
 * Broad topic . Population of 32 million, but it is an under-developed state. The experience of data examined at many dozens of MFDs on geographical portals is that regions or cities with population under a million rarely achieve high levels or readership or maintainers, and that even in developed areas, several million is needed to get a decent chance of viability.
 * High readership . Clear fail. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of 9 views per day is trivially low.
 * Lots of of maintainers . Clear fail. Completely abandoned for 12 years.

WP:POG also guides that a "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest)[1] to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal."' But while WikiProject Jharkhand exists, its talkpage's history shows that it has never been active. So effectively there is no WikiProject to support the portal.

It's time to stop luring readers away from the well-maintained B-class head article Jharkhand to this foundling portal, which was abandoned at birth and fails 3 points of WP:POG. Just delete it. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, primarily because of an obvious lack of maintainers. The topic is broad enough for a portal. Picturing it as a state is a little misleading; it is theoretically a sub-national region, but it is more populous than 80% of all countries. But I'm not seeing enough time being put into keeping this viable, and I see no purpose being served by an abandoned portal. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:33, 21 August 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 abandoned junk. I also oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Jharkhand is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concur with the analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl. Too few articles, too little maintenance of the articles, too few readers.  Perhaps we should not ask whether an area is a "broad subject area" a priori but should insist that breadth of the subject area means breadth of the selected articles (not of the range of articles for some future person to select).  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. If you close this as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks?  I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:India), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 25 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.