Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

 __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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa


8-year-old abandoned draft portal on a broad topic: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in Pakistan, known until 2010 as North-West Frontier Province.

This portal was created in 2011 by, and then abandoned apart from formatting changes. That's no criticism of Mar4d. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so editors are fully entitled to move on to other things. However, it has left us with a portal page which has never advanced beyond draft stage, because nobody else feels like building on it.

The list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa shows only one Selected article, one Selected picture, one Selected panorama, etc. All these pages were created in 2011, and remain unchanged since then apart from minor formatting tweaks and disambiguation. The news section is populalted by a bot which last generated any content in May 2018 (since then the bot has left the page blank).

This leaves us with a portal which clearly fails the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". The head article Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with navboxes Template:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa topics and Template:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provides much better sampling of topics and much better navigation.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has a population of ~35 million, a long history, and seems to be quite well-documented on wikipedia. So in theory it should easily satisfy the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". However, in practice it has not had maintainers, and has not attraced viewers: in Jan–Feb 2019 it had only 9 pageviews pers day.

Any editor who wants to build a portal which actually adds value would do much better to simply start afresh with a blank slate. There is no benefit to editors in keeping this abandoned draft in the hope that this might happen ... and it is unfair to readers to continue to promote this abandoned drat through blue links from 380 articles, 11 categories, and 2 portals. That is just luring them a redundant page which comes nowhere near fulfilling its purpose.

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) 16:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Will wait one to three days for a comment from User:Mar4d. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon now 4 days. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I created this portal many years back but perhaps it wasn't completed. Or perhaps it was, but partially. It is actually so long back that I can't remember. I don't think I have a strong opinion at this point regarding the outcome, but as far as the topic of the portal is concerned, I do feel it is notable in its own right to warrant such coverage, as BHG acknowledges. Unfortunately, at this particular time I would be unable to commit to the portal. So if deleting it is going to somehow solve the problem, then I don't really have anything to say other than noting the advice above about no prejudice against re-creation with content. That would, again, require man-hours, time and effort to re-do again. If it's not deleted (which I would lean towards), then perhaps that could speed up such an effort. I'm unable to voice a certain opinion or suggestion until the outcome of the MfD is open. Cheers,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * After 8 years of abandonment, I don't see how continued abandonment will speed anything up.
 * I thank Mar4d for their civility and openness, but the reality is that there are literally hundreds of portals which have been abandoned for anywhere up to 14 years. I see no evidence that there is any team of eager and active portal-builders putting in the long hours needed to make them viable.  I personally suspect that is highly unlikely to change, because as even TTH noted last week, two newish features of Wikipedia render most portals redundant:
 * mouseover: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, mouseover on any of the linked list items shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links
 * automatic imagery galleries: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, clinking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal
 * Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of the Android app for Wikipedia. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the nomination, and the statement of the portal author that they do not expect to be maintaining it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 13 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.