Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kyrgyzstan (2nd nomination)

 __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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Kyrgyzstan


Stillborn portal resurrected after deletion at 2011 XfD. Five selected articles, two bios. The five selected articles were created in August 2014, but never updated. In May 2019 one bio was added and one was updated. Broken DYK and news sections. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping other people would help contribute to making the portal better when I created it. I don't have time to work on it. In my opinion, if most countries have a portal I think the solution is to make this one better rather than deleting it. But do what you have to do. Pmelton87 (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Portal states: Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create. This portal should have never been recreated in the first place per that guideline, and it's no surprise that it was abandoned again after being resurrected since it was never a broad topic per POG the first time it existed. That other stuff exists elsewhere is of no bearing to this portal. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over five years after being dumped immediately after it was recreated, except for one-off single additions in 2015 and 2019. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over five years of no maintainers and it had an abysmal 11 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Kyrgyzstan having 5555 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I am strongly against allowing recreation, as over a decade of hard evidence and two different portal failures show Kyrgyzstan is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12.
 * This is a long-abandoned, almost-unviewed mini-portal. The comments above by the creator show that it should never have been created. (I presume that @Pmelton87 was unaware of the guidelines and acted in good faith, but the creation was still a misjudgement). --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete – The good-faith reply by User:Pmelton87 illustrates why the MFD process is where it currently is, with 49 portals currently nominated for deletion, mostly countries, cities, and regions. (I don't have statistics on what the average load has been in recent months, but since March MFD has had a load mostly of portals, and there have usually been less than 49 currently nominated.)  Pmelton87 writes:  "I was hoping other people would help contribute to making the portal better when I created it. I don't have time to work on it. In my opinion, if most countries have a portal I think the solution is to make this one better rather than deleting it.  But do what you have to do."  That is explanatory.  Editors have seen that many countries have portals, and have created them in the hope that other people would make them better.  Editors then see that many first-level administrative subdivisions (states, provinces) of major countries have portals, and create state portals in the hope that other editors will make them better.  But other people don't come along and make portals better.  They make more portals that also are not really ready for mainspace, so we now have hundreds of regional portals and other portals that are not good enough, and everyone thinks that someone else should improve them.  Creating portals is fun.  Maintaining portals is hard work.  And then, because every country and every state of a country has a portal, portal advocates say that countries "should" have portals, but they won't contribute to maintaining them, and they won't even propose a rule that countries should have portals.

I concur with the analyses by User:Mark Schierbecker and User:Newshunter12. I thank Pmelton87 for recognizing that some of us are doing what we have to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 17 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.