Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ottoman Empire

 __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 _ 02:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Ottoman Empire


Unfinished portal started in December 2015. The portal creator's last edit on Wikipedia was in June 2016. Portal:Ottoman_Empire/DYK/1 claims Sultan Fatih Sultan Mehmet ruled the Ottoman Empire for 624 years. If such an outstanding error can go unchallenged for four years, I'd say it's unlikely anyone will care enough about this page to maintain it. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - if the nomination reasoned by "unfinished" argument, then why not inviting participants instead of deleting it?GreyShark (dibra) 09:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding error in DYK - one can find such errors in many other places on Wikipedia. This is not a reason to delete an entire portal dedicated to an Empire which had such an enormous influence on civilization in Europe, Asia and Africa during the 2nd millennia.GreyShark (dibra) 09:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's better not to lure any readers away from articles (which are generally maintained) to portals that aren't. DexDor(talk) 15:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looking at the state of the portal ( "", "butterfly wing magnifications" etc) it's clear that (however much influence the empire had) the portal isn't about a subject that attracts maintainers. DexDor(talk) 15:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. With several years of no maintainers and only 14 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Ottoman Empire having 8360 views per day in the same period), this abandoned junk portal clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This one simply doesn't, regardless of the vast history of the Ottoman Empire. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. With this in mind, I am strongly against allowing recreation, as a portal is clearly not warranted for this topic. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this portal is junk.Catfurball (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Portal:Ottoman Empire I concur with the analyses by User:Mark Schierbecker and User:Newshunter12.  There has apparently been no maintenance since 2015, only 16 articles, only 14 daily pageviews.  The history of the Ottoman Empire is being seen by readers of Wikipedia 8360 daily in the parent article, so that the portal does not have 0.2% of the viewing of the article.  The subpage architecture is inherently flawed and should be phased out. If a future editor wants to create a portal that does not use subpages, they know where Deletion Review is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note redirects: Portal:Ottoman, Portal:Ottoman empire. This will need to be checked when clearing backlinks. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep With a 700-year history, this portal covers a sufficiently broad subject that easily meets the WP:POG guideline. The maintenance issues can be easily fixed by, wait for it . . . maintenance! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @UnitedStatesian, sure maintenance is the solution. But maintenance does not happen unless there are maintainers. And as nearly everyone else has noted, the problem is that this portal doesn't have maintainers. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Ottoman Empire/DYK/1 is a set of 3 fake DYKs. 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 trio has nothing to do with the WP:DYK process of scrutinised, verified, sourced hooks from new or expanded content. It's just a WP:TRIVIA section, and as the nominator notes, it is factually wrong. The lack of readers and maintainers means that the blatant error in line 3 remained uncorrected for 4 years. Sure, it's now fixed ... but the problem is the lack of routine monitoring.
 * Delete per nominator.
 * WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This fails on two of the three counts:
 * ✅ Broad topic . The Ottoman Empire was a massive state that controlled much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia and North Africa between the 14th and early 20th centuries.
 * High readership . The portal's January–June 2015 daily average of only 15 views per day is trivially low.
 * Lots of of maintainers . The 7 selected articles are all content forks, and six of them are entirely unchanged since their creation in December 2015‎. The other (Selected article/2) has had one trivial edit.  The seven Selected biographies are entirely unchanged since their creation in 2014/2015.
 * Crucially, this portal also fails another part of WP:POG: the requirement that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal." WikiProject Ottoman Empire is defunct, so that required supply of articles and maintainers doesn't exist. That's why the portal has rotted, and it's why it will continue to rot if kept.
 * The result is that most of the crucial pre-conditions are not met. So @DexDor is absolutely right: keeping this portal just lures readers away from well-maintained articles to an unmaintained portal. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs)
 * 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.