Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sussex

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sussex

 * – (View MfD)

This portal should be deleted for the following reasons:
 * It received an average of five pageviews per day across the year and an average of three pageviews per day last month
 * There is no active maintainer for this portal (User:Vox Humana 8' was last active in 2015 and User:The Menace was last active in 2015 and blanked their userpage in 2018)
 * This portal is redundant to Portal:East Sussex and Portal:West Sussex and WikiProject Sussex already exists
 * We don't need three different portals on Sussex
 * The news hasn't be updated since April 2008
 * The actual article Sussex received an average of 885 pageviews per day last month but this portal only received an average of 3 pageviews per day
 * There isn't much content that can fit into the portal as a whole because the content will either fit into Portal:East Sussex of Portal:West Sussex Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Stillborn Bonsai portal abandoned for a decade. Has only three articles and no maintainers. The B-Class head article Sussex, with two rich and versatile navboxes, are all readers need to explore this topic. That this portal has no mention whatsoever of the incredibly well known Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, demonstrates its complete abandonment and irrelevance. There should be no prejudice against nominating the other Sussex portals, as each portal stands or falls on its own merits. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Newshunter12 says it all. Though I think whether the other aforementioned portals should be deleted or not should be handled in separate nominations. ToThAc (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per analysis by User:Newshunter12.
 * Several years ago a portal was created for every county in England, state of the United States, state of Australia, and province of Canada. (Some have been deleted.)  The history of counties in England is complex.  Sussex is a historic county that has since been divided into East Sussex and West Sussex.  It might have been reasonable either to create one portal, or two.  But rather than make a decision, three were created.
 * Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Sussex/ shows 3 selected articles and 3 selected pictures, and a nomination procedure that may have never been used. The articles were forked in 2008; one of them had a typo corrected in 2017.
 * In the first half of 2019, the portal had | 6 average daily pageviews, while the head article Sussex had 1228.
 * 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.
 * The backlinks can be moved to Portal:England.
 * This portal should be deleted, without prejudice to nomination of the portals for the modern counties. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sussex Portals

 * Comment - The above table shows the portals for Sussex, its parts, and the region of which it is a part. Since the viewing for the other three portals is not much better than for Portal:Sussex, if the portal is deleted, I recommend that User:BrownHairedGirl move the backlinks to Portal:England.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. A redundant intermediary between Portal:England and the two sub-portals: Portal:East Sussex and Portal:West Sussex. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 16 November 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 a bot (BHGbot 4) which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries.
 * In this case I agree with @Robert McClenon that the appropriate new links would be to Portal:England. Alternative suggestions welcome. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete counties don't need a portal period.Catfurball (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Theoretical Keep I've proposed that portals with associated WikiProjects should be able to have portals as long as they're properly maintained, as this one does. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This portal has no maintainer and it is not properly maintained. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer shows no sign of having given much consideration of how that proposal relates to this discussion. WP:WikiProject Sussex has three portals within its scope: Portal:Sussex, Portal:East Sussex, Portal:West Sussex. There is no discussion on its talk page of any of them; Portal:Sussex &  Portal:West Sussex are mentioned only in deletion notices, and Portal:East Sussex is not mentioned at all.
 * Similarly, there is little or no discussion on any of the portal talk pages:
 * Portal:West Sussex: only one human post, no replies
 * Portal talk:East Sussex: last discussion was in 2007
 * Portal talk:Sussex: the only post ever is a mass message.
 * So the effect of SF's proposal is to allow the retention of a portal just because a project exists, even tho in practice the two are unconnected. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm focused solely on whether a topic is notable enough for a portal. This one does not appear to have a maintainer, so I don't ultimately care if it gets nuked, but there should be absolutely no prejudice on its recreation. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability is a concept related to the existence of articles. This is not an article.
 * I do understand that SportingFlyer wants no barrier to re-creation, but I don't see any logical basis for supporting re-creation on the basis of the existence of a project which has never shown any interest in any of the 3 portals in its scope. Maybe SF would like to explain why the uninterested project justifies having a portal. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is a concept related to whether something can exist in the encyclopaedia, whether it be a list, an article, a portal, et cetera. There should be no prejudice on recreating this. Notice I don't disagree with you that this portal should not be kept in this moment. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:Notability is explicitly applied only to articles. (A list is treated in en.wp as a type of article).
 * It allows the existence of almost 6 million articles, and I have never seen even TTH argue that we should allow up to 6 million portals.
 * That's why most discussions have supported some narrower criterion for portals, such as "broad topic area". -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you actually think for a second I'm suggesting that the notability guidelines for articles should be directly applied to portals? Also, I again respectfully ask you to leave me alone. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I hoped you were not suggesting that. But your repeated use of the word "notability" strongly suggested that you were.  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 21 November 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.