Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sociology

 __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) 08:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sociology

 * – (View MfD)

Stillborn portal. One selected article and one selected bio.

The selected bio was created in March 2007, and last changed out in April 2011. Last major edit in 2012.

Featured content section listing four entries is both outdated and totally incomplete. List of states with limited recognition was demoted in 2011 (and also has no relevance to this portal). Law was demoted in 2011.

The Selected article was "sociology" from March 2007 through September 2011, at which point the selected article became sociology of religion, a start-class article. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, per WP:TNT, and per the fact there is no good reason to keep portals that are in this state. Relatively low page views (60/day, compared to 3,176/day for Sociology) mean zero value is added by such a portal. Portals are not content, so any comparison to how broken articles are handled would be improper. The downgrading of POG cuts both ways - there is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Sociology

 * Delete as per nomination by User:Mark Schierbecker and as per stillborn comment. A well-viewed but unmaintained portal with very little content.
 * Since the Portal Guidelines have been downgraded to the status of an information page and we have no real portal guidelines, we should 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.  This 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 articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad); (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 maintainers, at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained.  Any portal that does not pass this common-sense test is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
 * Viewers deserve to see something, but get very little content and no maintenance. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 30 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:Society Portal:Social sciences), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, and per Crossroads and Robert's rationalisations above. — comrade  waddie96 ★ (talk)  06:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Portal:Social sciences. This is more likely to turn out a useful resolution of these portals while generating some value from the work already put into them. bd2412  T 13:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose both merger and redirection:
 * Merger just means preserving a set outdated of content forks, which is a v bad idea.
 * Redirection means that portals links will display a link to a portal which doesn't exist, and then surprise the reader by opening up a portal on a broader topic. It's much better to simply replace the links, as I proposed above. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator, and per Crossroads and Robert McC. This is yet another abandoned portal, which wastes the time of readers and risks feeding them inaccurate and/or outdated information. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 1 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.