Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Philosophy of mind

 __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) 08:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Philosophy of mind

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected portal. Hilary Putnam has been sole selected article since August 2006. News entries are from 2006. Conciousnesstheory.org link has been sniped and redirected to a spam website. Half of the listed featured articles have been de-listed. Links to a peer review request from 2006. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment if you are one of those votes "keep" based on a cursory glance at the edit history, please take note of this one. This page has 268 edits. An office employee who shuffles papers around all day to maintain the appearance of being busy is not a productive employee. A busy page history with lots of minor edits and layout changes does not indicate a well-maintained portal. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment- Backlinks from Portal:Mind and brain should be addressed if this portal is deleted. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per User:Mark Schierbecker due, as usual, to no maintenance, resulting in out-of-date information being presented to the reader. However, some comments are in order.  The nominator seems to be expecting Keep !votes stating that the portal is being frequently tweaked.  I see no Keep !votes.  I agree that the tweaking of the portal itself is not real maintenance; I don't recall having seen editors cite tweaking of the portal as a reason to Keep a neglected portal, but maybe I have missed something misguided.  Between 1 June and 31 July 2019, the portal had 37 daily pageviews (better than some), and the head article had 485 (not enough to support a portal).  I used the shorter baseline rather than the more common Jan-Jun 2019 baseline because the portal was renamed in May, a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic that interferes with counting the lifeboats and the passengers, and has no effect on the size of the iceberg hole.  This is a single-page portal, a design that would be less prone to errors if it linked to actual articles.  However, it has the worst possible single-page design, a single article that is an included copy, like a non-subpage subpage.  This is an even worse design than the use of forked subpages, because it hides the content forking.   There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems.  Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, and including a maintenance plan (since lack of maintenance is a problem with most portals), can go to Deletion Review.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom and Robert McClenon. This Bonsai portal has been abandoned for over a decade, besides some formatting tweaks, and is 19 articles short of POG's minimum of 20. The portal 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 a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a low 47 views |Portal:Mind_and_brain per day from January 1 to June 30 2019, which is a significant long-term decline from the 64 views |Portal:Mind_and_brain per day it had from July 1 to December 30 2015. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Philosophy of mind is not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy Portals
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This portal is not maintained but, more importantly, is not broad enough to warrant a portal. The actual article is sufficient to guide interested readers through this topic.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:47, 6 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:Pholosophy), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 8 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.