Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

 __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) 23:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States


Neglected portal.

Twenty selected articles and twenty selected bios all created in June 2011. Of these, only the Justice Scalia bio has been updated (20 months after his death).


 * Errors
 * Justice Anthony Kennedy retired from the Supreme Court in July 2018
 * Justice Robert Bork died in December 2018.
 * Justice John Paul Stevens died in July Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over eight years. 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 over a eight years of no maintainers and it had an abysmal 11 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (despite the head article Supreme Court of the United States, having 4,135 views per day in the same period). 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 eight years of hard evidence shows the Supreme Court of the United States is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this unmaintained portal as per Mark S. Portal has | 11 daily pageviews, as opposed to 4135 for head article.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States. There are 26 biographies (not 20), but they have not been updated since 2011.  Another portal created by an editor who has been blocked for sockpuppetry.  The failure of the portal to reflect deaths and other changes illustrates that forked subpages are a flawed design.   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, can go to Deletion Review.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - I would maintain if kept. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * “Neglected” is only one problem. The real problem is that the concept is conceptually flawed. For every ostensible purpose for readers, it is inferior to the article Supreme Court of the United States. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edit history shows less than 700 edits with no edits to portal space. Maintaining a portal is a long-term commitment that requires a great deal of initial short-term effort and some degree of technical intuition. I am slightly dubious. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine, you can be dubious if you like. I don't mind. (P.S. This is Cosmic Sans, post-username change.) May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  13:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Promises of future maintenance at MfD are not credible. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biological warfare, where Cirt promised to maintain the portal he created, which was a factor in the portal being kept. He only ever made five more edits to it and Portal:Biological warfare has been abandoned for over nine years, save for a few passing updates many years ago. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE, you cant go comparing editors here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The outcome of this MfD will be whatever it will be. All I'm saying is that I am willing to maintain the portal, should it be kept. My primary interest area on Wikipedia is law, and I've been looking for a pet project. I can't attest to what other people may or may not have done in other MfDs. Just trying to be helpful. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  14:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Too narrow a topic to warrant a portal. SD0001 (talk) 15:07, 30 August 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:United States and Portal:Law), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, and oppose re-creation. This narrow topic fails POG through its failure to attract ether readers or maintainers. the B-class head article Supreme Court of the United States does a vastly better job than this abandoned portal of the core tasks of navigation and showcasing, and has also has a vastly-better built-in-image gallery.
 * Even tho this portal has few readers, we do a great disservice to any readers who are lured away from the fine B-class head article to this waste of their time. I also oppose re-creation.  USSC articles are so well-linked that this failed portal doesn't address any problem in existing  navigation or showcasing. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 1 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.