Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Piano

 __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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Piano

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected portal.
 * Twelve selected articles; one featured article, one good article, one unrated, a handful Start-class, and the rest are either C-class or B-class.
 * Inadequately maintained by the creator, who created it in October 2010, and only regularly maintained it for about two weeks. They began editing it only at least once a year until 2014, when they stopped editing the portal altogether save one edit at the beginning of this year.
 * Pageviews in the first half of 2019 make up roughly .501% of the parent article's pageviews in the same period.

So this portal clearly come into scrutiny with WP:POG. ToThAc (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, the scope exists but not the desire to maintain it. If no one's maintaining it, nuke it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The portal has 19 articles (12 selected articles and seven selected manufacturers). Selected articles 1-9 and manufacturer articles 2-7 all date to 2010. The first manufacturer article received received a minor update in 2013. Of the remaining three selected articles: one was updated in 2012, one in 2017, and one was added in 2019 by a passing editor. The fluff parts of the portal, such as the picture gallery and the audio gallery have received sporadic updates over the years. Five of the DYK's date to 2010, while three date to 2013, and serve as nothing more than WP:TRIVIA.
 * Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been steadily maintained by Morn, who has only sporadically updated the portal since shortly after creation in 2010. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has had about nine years of no steady maintainers and it had an abysmal 10 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Piano had 1,995 views per day in the same period). This is a steady long-term decline from the 15 views per day it had from July 1 to Dec. 30 2015.
 * POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but while WikiProject Music is active, the portal has never been mentioned on the talk page and is not listed at all the main page, which is the same for WikiProject Musical Instruments, though the later project is inactive (the last editor to editor conversation was in June 2008). 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 nearly a decade of hard evidence shows the Piano is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or steady maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete as per User:ToThAc - Low readership, with 10 daily pageviews Jan19-Jun19, as opposed to 1995 for main article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Piano shows 12 articles and 7 manufacturers with various degrees of maintenance ranging from 2010 to 2019, and with 18 pictures and 21 audio clips.  (Have not checked the maintenance or consistency of the pictures or music).  Instruments as subjects for portals have not in the recent past had the required breadth of coverage, viewership, or maintenance.   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) 18:54, 8 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:Music), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, and oppose re-creation. Low readership + poor maintenance = clear fail of the WP:POG requirement 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". In this case, there is no WP:WikiProject Piano, and WP:WikiProject Musical Instruments seems dormant.  A June 2019 attempt to " breath life into this WikiProject" brought no responses.
 * The project has never shown any interest in the portal. A search of its talkpage archives brings up zero mentions of the portal, and four other instrument portals have been deleted because of their narrowness and abandonment: see MFD:Portal:Pipe organ, MFD:Portal:Guitar, MFD:Portal:Classical guitar, and MFD:Portal:Percussion.
 * For a decade, portal enthusiasts have massively overestimated the number of portals which they have they capacity to maintain to a standard which actually adds sufficient value for readers to make it worthwhile to lure readers to them, and to justify the overheads of keeping them. The result has been a sea of undeveloped, almost unread portals which waste the time of readers and degrade Wikipedia ... and this is one of those superfluous portals. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 12 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.