Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sasanian 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sasanian Empire

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected portal. Time to just delete it already. ToThAc (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Eleven selected articles, none of which were updated outside of very minor tweaks in mid-2016.
 * The creator created this article in mid-2013, but rarely edited it after the initial week of creating it. All other edits since then have just been drive-by routine maintenance.
 * Average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019 are an abysmal 7 for the portal versus 1610 for the parent article, or .43%.
 * Comment - The table below compares Portal:Sasanian Empire against the portals for one of its traditional opponents and for the modern Persian state of Iran. The portal had an average of daily daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, as opposed to 1610 for the head article.  The 11 articles were content-forked in 2013, and mostly had minor edits in 2016 or 2018, with no substantive maintenance.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sasanian Empire

 * Delete as per User:ToThAc.
 * The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense.  The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense.  It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers.  (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.)  Common sense imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense:  (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies).  Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable.  Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
 * User:BrownHairedGirl - Although the Sasanian Empire is much larger than the modern Persian state of Iran, the latter is the cultural successor to all of the previous Persian states, and is a reasonable target for the backlinks.
 * Low viewership, not many articles, no maintenance of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 19 October 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:Iran), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet a other long-abandoned and almost-unread portal. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, per the delete votes above, and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the poor condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, like an article is, since they are for navigation instead. It is therefore improper to use rationales meant for keeping articles to argue that this failed navigation device should be kept. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised or done at the last minute just to stave off deletion. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. The community's consensus not to delete all portals is not a consensus to keep all portals; instead they are to be evaluated individually, as is being done here. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve old and inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. I support replacement of links rather than redirection, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. This portal is now technologically redundant to other superior WP options/tools. For content, the Main Article is a better, larger, structured read, (with mouseovers), that is monitored.  For navigation, the Navboxes on the Main Article are also better, and by being transcluded are also kept more up to date.  Finally, for a directory of FA/GA articles, the WikiProject Iran and Iraq sites have larger non-POV’ed directories.  This portal is therefore “rationally abandoned” by editors and readers in favour of better alternatives, and unlikely to recover from that situation. Britishfinance (talk) 15:47, 24 October 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.