Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kazakhstan

 __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 | babble _ 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Kazakhstan


Stillborn portal. One selected article, one bio and one selected picture. Of these, only the selected picture has been updated since 2007. News section last updated in 2008. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – No prejudice against re-creation of a curated, complete portal. North America1000 03:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, with strong prejudice against re-creation.
 * WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". In this case, we don't need to make estimates of likelihood, because we have clear evidence that over 12 years, this portal has attracted no maintainers and almost no readers.
 * An abandoned portal such as this is significantly worse than no portal, because it misleads readers and wastes their time. The existence of a portal promises a gateway to more topics, but instead the poor reader lured to this abandoned junk will find e.g. :
 * Portal:Kazakhstan/Kazakhstan news, still displaying "news" from 2008.
 * Portal:Kazakhstan/Did you know, still displaying the same two items as in 2007. . 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 12-year-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section.
 * The C-class head article Kazakhstan is a vastly better navigational hub than the portal; and because the head article is written in summary style, it is also and a vastly better showcase. As with most portals, this one is a failed solution in search of a problem. So don't re-create it. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this portal is terrible, one selected article and two selected biographies, what a shame.Catfurball (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – This portal was created in 2007 and has not been maintained since 2008. Creating a portal is fun; maintaining a portal is work.  Its originator has been inactive since 2016 (but wasn't maintaining the portal after 2008). The portal has had three articles by the most generous possible count.  I agree that the portal is terrible, and will not disagree that it has only one article, but I prefer to count generously when the portal is obviously a lost cause.  The portal has 15 daily pageviews, as contrasted with the head article Kazakhstan with 8337 daily pageviews. This portal has not been assessed since portal assessment was introduced a year ago, which does not give much reason to expect that portal advocates will be able to design a properly built portal; but if another editor wants to develop a portal that does not rely on subpages, which are a failure, they know where Deletion Review is.     Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please keep: Could we please have a moratorium on deletions of national portals?  These national portals can be rebuilt and updated.  This is just creating chaos with no benefit to Wikipedia.  Please see User:Buaidh/Geographic portals for the current impact.  Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 23:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No moratorium. Thee abandoned portals have been wasting the the time and energy of readers and editors for years. They don't just fail to add value; they actively mislead, by providing outdated or incomplete information.
 * The only chaos here is in Buaidh's imagination and in the list of redlinks which he has created. Wikipedia is significantly improved by the removal of unused, misleading, badly-designed portals which readers avoid.
 * It is very easy to to make glib statements that portals can be rebuilt and updated. The reality is that maintaining them requires a lot of ongoing work by a lot of editors, and in face of the evidence of long-term neglect it is utterly implausible to simply state that this can end.  There might be some credibility to such a statement if there was evidence of a team of active maintainers had formed, but there is no such evidence. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. As a portal about an entire nation it obviously meets the portal guideline demand for a broad subject area. It has the potential to attract a large number of readers and maintainers according to the guideline. If it does not, then it must be because it requires improvement. And the correct line of correction for content that requires improvement is not deletion. There is no deadline. --Hecato (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hecato, POG says that "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" and the evidence above is that the portal hasn't attracted maintainers for a long period - so why do you think it ("obviously") is a broad subject area (as the term is used in POG)? DexDor(talk) 17:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is about an entire nation. It can serve as a portal to all of the articles about that nation and can attract all of the people who are interested in it. That is a broad subject area. If it did not attract attention then it might be because it lacks quality, utility and linking. You can make a portal about the universe itself, the broadest subject area possible, but if it does not include any useful content besides a stale Douglas Adams joke and no links leading to it then it will not attract any attention. Pretty obvious, don't you think? --Hecato (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the page lacked quality then it should have been easy for any editors interested in it to have improved it. The intended meaning of "It can serve as a portal to all of the articles about that nation and can attract all of the people who are interested in it." isn't at all clear. DexDor(talk) 16:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:NEGLECT, I am also voting keep as I see no value in WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments. In this case we are talking about an entire country, it does not fall under too narrow of a scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply. WP:NEGLECT is irrelevant. It is an essay, rather than policy or guideline, and as such it has zero status.  In any case, it is all about articles, and portals are not articles.
 * The reasons given for deletion are reasoned and policy-based and accompanied by detailed evidence. Knowledgekid87's dismissal of them as IDONTLIKEIT is a dishonest misrepresentation of the contributions of other editors.
 * It's also clear that Knowledgekid87 has not read WP:POG, which defines scope in terms of ability to sustain a viable portal. It requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" ... but Knowledgekid87 chooses to ignore everything after the comma.
 * So the closing admin will be obliged to attach to no weight to Knowledgekid87's !vote, since it is not based on policy or guidelines.
 * It is also notable that Knowledgekid87 has posted a near-identical boilerplate response to at least half-a-dozen MFD nominations, each of which has had detailed evidence posted well before Knowledgekid87's arrival. Knowledgekid87 doesn't simply ignore the evidence, but goes the next step and dishonestly dismisses it as IDONTLIKEIT.  This sort of spammed dishonesty is disruptive conduct.  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please, this coming from the user who copy pastes the same comment (sometimes multiple times) in every MfD, is quite rich. If there is a mass deletion of similar portals with a common reason given, then you can give a common response. --Hecato (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The statement that these portals should be kept so that they can be updated and rebuilt is silly. Most of them use thditor e failed paradigm of partial copies of pages, and if they are rebuilt, should be rebuilt from scratch with dynamite. Besides, if no one is maintaining them, why does it make sense to expect that Godot will upgrade them? As to whether they do any harm, the answer is that many of them present no-longer-correct information, such as about heads of state who have been replaced either democratically or undemocratically. Obsolete information in portals is worse than in articles, because most editors do not know how to update portal subpages. They are not harmless, and no one is about to fix them. Any editor who wants to propose that regional portals should have a special status may do so at WP:POG2019RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment in response to the call by User:Buaidh and others for a moratorium on the deletion of regional portals: Please discuss this at Village Pump where I have tried to mention the issue of regional portals.  I will personally respect any request for a moratorium to allow discussion of the status of regional portals if it is made there via an RFC.  (I cannot speak for any other editor.)  I will ignore any moratorium request that is not made there.  There have been many comments that nations, states of the United States, and other regions should have portals, but, until now, no serious discussion of the guidelines for such portals.
 * Delete per nom. DexDor(talk) 16:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom and BrownHairedGirl. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade and has almost no viewers, which is for the best since it is an out of date time suck the sands of time forgot. According to WP:POG, it requires a substantial number of readers and maintainers to be useful and merit existence, which it doesn't. Portals stand or fall in the now on their merits, not given moratoriums to keep counter-productive junk forever on the chance someday something might get better. Given the over decade of evidence that this is not a suitable topic for a portal, I am strongly against allowing recreation. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete because the portal doesn't offer anything more than the Kazakhstan article even in terms of juicy attracting little things and because there is no significant edit history lost (only a dozen edits from 2007 by the creator, then minor edits by others). The first box contains 5 years old information which happens to be a 5 % error on the population numbers; this would not matter much if the portal didn't have hundreds of incoming links, which make it a particularly harmful waste of real estate in our interface. Nemo 07:13, 7 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.