Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Parliamentary procedure

 __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) 06:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Parliamentary procedure

 * – (View MfD)

Pointless micro-portal on the narrow topic of parliamentary procedure. Abandoned since 2014, with trivially low readership (2/day). Redundant to the navbox Template:Parliamentary procedure.

Portal created on 17 April 2008‎ by, whose last edit to any part of the portal was only two weeks later, on 1 May 2008 (see Parlirules's portal-space contribs). Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has warned "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", but Parlirules did not follow that guidance.

The portal and sub-pages were tweaked a bit in 2013 by @Northamerica1000, and again in 2014 by @Coreyemotela, who was blocked soon after as a confirmed sockpuppet of a prolific sockpuppeteer. Coreyemotela did wisely move the portal from Portal:Parliamentary Procedure to Portal:Parliamentary procedure, but none of the sub-pages have been changed since that move (apart from those linking to other portals and WikiProjects etc).

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Parliamentary procedure shows a tiny set of sub-pages. There are no selected articles etc, just four pages with lists: (/Manuals, /Motions, /Motions/Misc) plus /Topics which simply transcludes the navbox Template:Parliamentary procedure.

There is massive overlap between the navbox and the three lists, so the whole thing is pointless. The navbox does a vastly better job, because it is transcluded in the articles, so it can be used to go directly between them without the intermediate step of the portal.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides 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". This fails on all four counts:
 * 1)  Broad topic . No. Category:Parliamentary procedure is quite slim, until you burrow into its subcats of actual motions passed by various bodies. The table on Category:Parliamentary Procedure articles by quality has only 197 pages in all, some of which are categories.  The set includes no FA- or A-class, and only one B-class.
 * 2)  High readership .  No.  The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 2 views per day is likely all background noise.
 * 3)  Lots of maintainers . No. The last substantive maintenance was in 2014.
 * 4)  WikiProject involvement . No. WP:WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure exists, but the last discussion on its talk page was in 2016, so I tagged it as inactive.. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure has never been archived, and contains zero mentions of this portal.

The portal as it stands is pointless, and I see little scope for improvement. It fails all the key tests in POG. Time to just delete it. And since the problems are deep-seated and long-standing, I oppose re-creation. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 18 September 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 an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Politics), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator,  Brown HairedGirl . Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to an  over five year long abandoned portal on an incredibly narrow topic. I oppose re-creation, as over five years of hard evidence shows Parliamentary procedure is not a broad enough topic per WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. This portal is a solution in search of a problem, with the added benefit of creating a problem where there was none. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Parliamentary Procedure

 * Delete - With an average view rate of 3 pageviews per day and a median of 2, I will be generous and use the 3, which is no more than a noise level. Very little actual article coverage, and that isn't maintained.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:BrownHairedGirl - I see parliamentary procedure as a form of non-courtroom law and would recommend diverting the backlinks to Portal:Law but am also showing Portal:Politics. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that Portal:Law is a very poor fit. One of the distinguishing features of parliamentary procedure is overwhelmingly a form of self-regulation, rather than law.  So the rules are adopted, monitored, and enforced by the people to whom they apply, which contrasts with normal principles of law.  See e.g. Article 15.10 of the Irish constitution, which entrenches self-regulation. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Way too narrow and doesn't seem to provide any utility to the reader above what the main article and associated cats and info boxes are already doing. --Spasemunki (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and oppose re-creation per analysis by BrownHairedGirl. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too narrow topic.--Darwinek (talk) 22:30, 24 September 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.