Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kent

 __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  no consensus. MfD standards for portals can be derived from pages such as Portal:Contents/Portals, Featured portal criteria, Portal, Portal guidelines, Portal/Instructions, and or Portal/Proposals, etc. From Wikipedia:Portal, "a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas through pages similar to the Main Page. In essence, portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content." In deleting, ask: is a portal no longer helpful to user to navigate their way through the Wikipedia topic areas? Is the portal no longer a useful entry-point to Wikipedia content? Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria mentions the time element: ""Well-maintained. It is updated regularly to display different aspects of Wikipedia's content in an area. Featured portals may be designed to reduce the required frequency of updating; however, they may be designed to have a higher turnover of content, using structures to ensure regular updates (e.g., WikiProjects). Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted."" From this, it is clear that portals are not subject to deletion merely for not being updated for three or more months. However, five years is significantly more than three month. It raises the issue that a portal is no longer helpful or useful, but does not establish it by itself. Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria appears to note how portals may be updated without being directly edited. Regarding the time element and in view of the above, a question in this MfD that should have been addressed is whether the Kent portal is no longer helpful to user to navigate their way through the Wikipedia topic areas or no longer a useful entry-point to Wikipedia content. The inactive since 2007 then could be used to show that the Kent portal will not be helpful or useful in the future. As BDD notes, if Bencherlite is working on updating the Kent portal, that may address the concern over inactivity since 2007. For this MfD discussion, neither the keep nor delete consensus arguments were sufficiently strong. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Kent


Portal is inactive since 2007. Editor who created it last edited in 2010. Magioladitis (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep needs a tidy-up (including removing the dead news section) but lack of updates is not a reason to delete a portal. I'm starting the tidy-up process. BencherliteTalk 10:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * DELETE - Portals are past their sell-by date, and appear to have been superseded by "Outlines" for most subject areas. The fact that this page has not been edited for over three years demonstrates this, and the lack of commitment shown by the members of the "Kent" project. In fact the portal was only seriously edited in 2007, there were only two edits in 2008, none in 2009, one in 2010, and none in 2011 or 2012. Bhtpbank (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If a portal has been set up with a selection of articles, biographies, pictures, etc then it does not actually need further editing to be useful to readers looking to explore the subject matter. This one has 10 selected articles, 8 selected biographies, 27 selected images and other standard portal components, so is far more than a minimal effort. Your view that portals are past their sell-by date is not a reason to delete this one and is, I'm afraid, pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Do either of you have a policy-based reason for deletion? BencherliteTalk 16:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the page has not been seriously edited since 2007! Bhtpbank (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So that's a no, then - you don't have a policy-based reason for deletion. Thanks for clearing that up. BencherliteTalk 09:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, thats a YES. I refer you to WP:DEL Item 12. - Files that are unused, and also Item. 10 - Redundant or otherwise useless. Bhtpbank (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When your policy-based reasons for deletion of a portal relate to files that are unused and to templates that are redundant or otherwise useless (read the whole reason at no.10) you really ought to stop before you make a complete fool of yourself. Hint - this discussion is about deleting a portal, not a file or a template. BencherliteTalk 10:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As a Platinum Editor you should know better than to resort to insults. - Bhtpbank (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Telling you to stop before you make a complete fool of yourself is not a personal attack. BencherliteTalk 11:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "fool" is enough. If you cannot make an argument with trying to humiliate people, then you need to calm down.
 * Chortle. BencherliteTalk 12:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a policy-based reason for keeping it??? Bhtpbank (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you've got your arguments back to front. You want to delete it, you show why it should be deleted - that's how deletion works.  This is a useful entry-point to WP's content about Kent with appropriate selected content and links for readers and editors (see WP:PORTAL) and so easily satisfies any burden that there is for its existence. The topic of Kent is certainly wide enough to justify a portal - indeed, another English county has a featured portal about it. Oh, look, there's another one.  Now, just to stop you putting forward another bad argument, yes I know that Portal:Kent isn't as good as either the Cheshire or the Somerset portals but when we start deleting articles because they're not featured articles you can start deleting portals because they're not featured portals.  (Hint: "it's not a featured article" is not, and will never be, a policy-based reason for deletion). BencherliteTalk 10:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not the editor that nominated this article for deletion, I was just casting my vote. I suggest you make your arguments against deletion with Magioladitis.  I think you have some WP:OWN issues about this page and probably need a breather from editing. - Bhtpbank (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have been making your poor arguments for deletion and I have been pressing you on them. You can't wriggle out of it now by saying "I was not the editor that nominated this article [hint, it's a portal] for deletion, I was just casting my vote". If you can't back your arguments up, and display instead a worrying inability to distinguish between reasons to delete files, templates and portals, then accusing me of incivility and ownership issues just looks like an attempt on your part to change the subject and avoid the issue. (I have ownership issues about a portal I had never looked at until it was nominated for deletion? Seriously?!) I quote from WP:PORTAL as to why this portal is appropriate and you do not answer. I point out that your reference to unused files / redundant templates are completely off the point and you do not answer. Your silence on these issues speaks volumes. BencherliteTalk 12:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This portal can be classified as being dead (Inactive for three years) and as having no unique content of worth. As such it is recommended that they be nominated for deletion at WP:MfD. -Bhtpbank (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You just don't know when to stop, do you? Now you quote Inactive WikiProjects as a reason to delete a portal. You do know that WikiProjects and portals are different, don't you?  BencherliteTalk 13:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Bencherlite. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 17:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How can you simply state "keep" without giving a reason? I have been given a thorough going over for suggesting we delete it, so what are your reasons for wanting to keep it? Where have you been since 2007 when it was lasted edited, and why do you only now stick your head above the parapet in support of a dead article.  Just because it is a portal does not make it any more important on Wikipedia. 01:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs)
 * Firstly, the reasons given are those put forward by Bencherlite, with which I concur, and which I VERY CLEARLY cited as my reasons above. Do I have to reiterate everything that has already been said above? No, I don't. Secondly, it is none of your fucking business "where I have been since 2007" and none of your fucking business why I do or don't do any particular thing on Wikipedia. Stop bludgeoning the process. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 13:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank  (talk • contribs) 14:47, 5 December 2013
 * No, actually there isn't. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Personally, I do think being abandoned is a valid reason to delete a portal, and have voted as such recently. However, if Bencherlite is working on updating this one, the issue is resolved. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Deletion rationale seems non-compelling. One of the Portal's editors being gone is not a good enough reason to pull hir work and this is very, very not the right venue (or the right process) for eliminating Portals, in general. Achowat (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2013 (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.