Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Maryland roads

 __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. The deletion argument boils down to Maryland roads being a very narrow subject, and pageviews indicate that very few readers make use of this page. The keep argument boils down to the fact that this portal is being actively maintained, is serving accurate and up-to-date content to readers, and therefore it's not hurting anyone and shouldn't be deleted. In the absence of any policies/guidelines on portals, it's difficult to objectively weigh one side's arguments over the other, especially when !vote counts are roughly equal. ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 20:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Maryland roads

 * – (View MfD)

Intersection portal (Portal:Maryland ∩ Portal:Roads). Subportals based in Intersections are per se a narrow topic. Expanding a subportal based on an Intersection topic is to include redundant material with both parent portals. At a time when discussing whether second level country divisions are broad topics, surely a state's road network does not support a portal. On the portal page is already shown a scheme that demonstrates a fifth level of subportal, the community decided not to have ten thousand portals, so decided not to have similar specific portals that one. Not supported by specific wikiproject. Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This portal was previously discussed earlier this year at Miscellany for deletion/State-level road portals, and the decision there was to keep. It is bad process to continually nominate portals that are kept at MfD, of course not pinging the previous participants, until a delete result is finally reached. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @UnitedStatesian The previous group MfD was more then six months ago, so it's perfectly valid to have a new individual MfD and not ping long ago participants. Your vote is keepist fluff not based on any actual merit of the portal or Wikipedia policy. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * An Old MfD in talk page and I would not have started this mfd, Sorry.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Portal topic is not too narrow, there are enough articles, pictures, and DYK hooks to sustain it. Portal is also maintained. I should also note we have Portal:California roads and Portal:Michigan highways.  Dough   4872   17:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Dough4872 While this portal is maintained by you, it has only a median of three views per day, which is a background noise of your own visits to the portal and search bots. This portal isn't for readers, it's for you, which is why you are voting to keep it. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Very narrow niche topic that doesn't need a portal for readers to explore it. Had an abysmal pure background noise four views per day in the first half of 2019, which was still fluffed up from a median of three views per day by the previous MfD. Since the previous group MfD was more then six months ago, there is no reason a new individual MfD cannot be held. While the portal has a maintainer, it's clear to any rational person that this portal is for them, not the readers who have clearly shunned it. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, despite being an intersection portal there is a large amount of good material here, there is a maintainer, and no problems with the actual content have been exhibited in the nomination. "Low page views" is on the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Eevn if there is "little need" for this portal, it is entirely unclear how deleting it improves Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 13:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I do not agree that all portals whose subject matter is the intersection of other portals should be deleted. However, the parent portals should be assessed, and taken into account.  As noted, the decision to keep this portal was made six months ago, and did not assess viewing and maintenance as thoroughly as has been done in recent months.
 * This portal is being currently maintained. It is one of the few portals that still has the article-of-the-month style that was common in the previous decade.  In the case of this portal, refreshing (purging) the portal does not bring up a new article, but restores the article of the month, so that only one article can be viewed (other than from behind the portal).
 * The portal had a mean of | 4 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, and that was inflated by high viewing during the time of the previous MFD. The median in the first half of 2019 was 3 daily pageviews.  The head article Maryland highway system had an average of | 7 daily pageviews, which is not much of an improvement.  (There has never been a requirement that articles have large numbers of readers.  This one does not.  But articles with small numbers of readers seldom support portals.)
 * The portal is being maintained, in its own way, but that does not provide a way to browse the subject matter, that is, Maryland roads, which can be done via Category: Lists of roads in Maryland. The portal, by its architecture, is not a useful navigational device.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep—in addition to reasons given above, this is supported by a specific project: WP:USRD. Page views are not a rationale for deletion.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The number of article that are FA and GA are sufficient here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks?  I have a bot (BHGbot 4) which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries.
 * In this case I think that the appropriate new links would be to Portal:Maryland + Portal:U.S. Roads. Alternative suggestions welcome. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete we should have only one United States road portal.Catfurball (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete chiefly because no one's maintaining it beyond trivial category and tag maintenance. Number of GAs and FAs are red herrings here; this is just puffery as Wikipedia features prominently on the homepage and on the articles themselves whether the articles are GA or FA. What matters is who is maintaining it and to what extent. This should be with the casual caveat that consensus can change, including the day after this MfD closes, so there'd be no prejudice to re-creating it (presumably with some automated or semi-automated script), provided someone is going to regularly update it in a meaningful way. Doug Mehus T · C  03:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment this is probably too narrow of a topic, but it does appear maintained. We should focus on developing guidelines for which topics are notable enough for portals - this piecemeal deletion helps nothing. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep well-maintained portal. Don't see the benefit of deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the comment made to .  I used to be of the mindset that the portalspace was a valuable introductory resource to our readers.  Then I started seeing the numbers that people just don't visit the portals.  So Newshunter12 asked the right question, who is this portal (and all portals) for? –Fredddie™ 22:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A sincere question - What is the difference between Portal:Maryland roads/Selected article and a List of highways? How can you say that this topic is broad if there is no content other than highways? Per WP:PORTAL ... Purposes of portals 1. "Providing a variety of sample content ..."Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Answer to - I believe per WP:PORTAL the community needs to limit the scope of portals, that would be the benefit of deleting this portal. All this "problems on portals" began exactly by portals with very narrow topics. Even if well maintained, portals with very narrow topics do not meets to the collective project of wikipedia, becoming something private to a small group of editors.Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. An "intersection portal" like this is too small a topic for a portal (would an ordinary ready expect a "portal" into Maryland's road system?); even the Head Article (Maryland highway system) is a small sized article.  There are excellent Navboxes created for the Maryland highway system and they split into list articles for each WP Maryland road article (with photographs).  I can't see what this portal adds over the Main Article+Navboxes, and would prefer any editing capacity we have in this area is about maintaining the Main Article+Navboxes? Britishfinance (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Its articles and content could be featured, potentially, as part of a U.S. interstate and state highway system portal, but individual state-by-state highway portals, is excessive and no one is viewing and/or maintaining them. Personally, I don't use portals; I find navboxes way more helpful for navigating between related articles and I think that's the way to go. Doug Mehus T · C  16:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I was asking the question in User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace, why don't we just use the very nice frameless gallery at the bottom of the Head Article, Maryland highway system, (as per this Event Communications), which could link to 4-5 great articles on Maryland Roads (more than the portals has featured), and in a more scruitizined and less FORKED environment? Most other parts of the portal are just repitions of the Navboxes which are already in the Head Article? Plus, "framless galleries" look nice in mobile view (where are portals cannot).  Surely for many smaller portals, a Main Article "frameless gallery" is a better solution? thanks Britishfinance (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just added all of the 4 FA Maryland Roads articles plus a GA article in a "frameless gallery" to the Head Article: Maryland highway system? Does this work? Britishfinance (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes. Those pictures were the only good thing about this Maryland state highways portal. Adding that gallery to the Maryland state highway system article better achieves that purpose—and will likely be seen by more people. I see no reason to keeping this portal now. Call it a "reverse WP:HEY". ;-) Doug Mehus T · C  20:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that gallery ok re WP:GALLERY? DexDor(talk) 20:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. We should only have portals for broad topics; the mere existence of some portals for narrow topics may cause editors to think that they need to create a portal for "their" narrow topic (with costs in editor time etc).  Few (if any) actual readers (i.e. not bots/editors) would ever use this portal so there is little to be gained from keeping it. DexDor(talk) 20:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - No policy based rationale for deletion given.  G M G  talk  19:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that all policies/guidelines related to portals have been depreciated by the community; portals at MfD require WP:COMMONSENSE arguements. Britishfinance (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , respectfully, I'm confused by this comment and !vote. How do you consider there has been no "policy-based deletion reason"? Lack of maintenance, lack of upkeep, low pageviews, and triviality, as I understand it, separately or when conjoined, do very much make a deletion argument valid. Irrespective of this, deletions can occur on solid arguments regardless of established policy. Put another way, if there has been a very solid argument for deletion that isn't specifically identified in a formal policy, deletion can still occur. And what said, as he or she has contributed to way more XfD discussions than I have. Doug Mehus  T · C  20:16, 29 November 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.