Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Washington roads (2nd nomination)

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [gossip] || 22:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Washington roads

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected portal. So yeah, I think this portal fails WP:POG. ToThAc (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ten selected articles; while all of them are good articles, this is only half of the general minimum.
 * Maintained by the creator for only twenty hours. They last edited in January 2019, and following maintenance has been too sporadic.
 * Average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019 are only six for the portal, with a median of four.
 * Also, I think the reason the previous MfD failed was because too many portals were nominated at once rather than individually.
 * --Rschen7754 18:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete While the available pool of content is pretty decent, I'm not interested in maintaining a portal that can be folded into several others.  Sounder Bruce  18:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Intersection portal (Portal:Washington (state) ∩ Portal:Roads). Subportals based in Intersections topics not meets WP:POG per "should not be redundant to another portal" Expanding a subportal based on an Intersection topic is to include redundant material with both parent portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:12, 12 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:Washington (state) +Portal:U.S. roads), without creating duplicate entries. In this case, there are only 3 links from articles, and none from categories, so it's  a trivial job. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, and oppose re-creation. Narrow topic + 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". -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, and oppose re-creation per the nom. Too narrow a topic, not maintained, low readership, which adds up to a 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". Newshunter12 (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Question - Before we discuss whether the portal meets portal guidelines, we should address whether deletion procedures are being followed. This portal already had an MFD which was closed as Keep; see Miscellany for deletion/State-level road portals.  Is it being argued that the closure was procedural, that the bundle was questionable?  Is it being argued that the closure was a bad Non-Admin Close?  The deletion of portals is sufficiently contentious that I would prefer to avoid any questionable nominations when there are still many portals that are clear failures.  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Washington State Roads Portal
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * The portal in question was the subject of a bundled MFD that was closed on 7 May 2019 as Keep. The closer was a non-administrative closer with little or no experience in closing XFDs, User:Nova Crystallis, who might not have known to make a distinction between a procedural close and a Keep, and one can argue that the close was a bad non-administrative close.
 * While some of the other state road portals in the bundle are being maintained, this portal does not appear to be being maintained (and my !vote was an error on my part).
 * There are only 10 articles, and if does not appear that they have been maintained since 2016. The portal has a mean of 6 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, and a median of 4 daily pageviews.  (There was a peak of 56 views on 1 May 2019.)
 * Metrics are shown above for the Washington Roads portal, the US roads portal, and the Roads portal. It should be noted that neither the Washington Roads portal nor the US Roads portal has a specific matching head article.  The Washington Roads portal was tagged for months as needing attention for this reason, which illustrates that the tagging of portals is not useful.
 * The previous MFD should not prevent this MFD from being considered on its merits. I will go to Deletion Review if necessary, but am asking the closer to consider this on its merits.
 * I stand by my decision when I closed the XfD then. It was the right move at that point. It wasn't even close of a call for a consensus, just about everyone !voted keep (even you). Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  05:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Low readership, too few articles, no maintenance. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I was the delete nominator the first time around, but that MfD (which was less than five months ago) closed as keep, and it is TERRIBLE process to keep trying to delete the same portals over and over and over again until finally a delete result is achieved (sneak it past the keep !voters, don't even ping them). This should go to DRV, not here, if an editor believes it was closed incorrectly (bad NAC, for example) because NOTHING HAS CHANGED since that MfD: the portal has not decayed, no applicable policy or guideline was updated, nothing.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @UnitedStatesian A past voter was pinged, some came on their own, and portal space has changed markedly since the last MfD. Many hundreds of junk unmaintained portals like this have been deleted since then, which necessitates a new review of this portal. WP:POG was also found, in the intervening period, to have technically not actually been formally accepted as a guideline a decade ago, which counts as a guideline update. Whining about process and making false claims are just a backdoor to trying to keep junk you like (in this case portals in general, not this specific one) in the face of overwhelming evidence. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and oppose re-creation per similar votes above. The previous bundled MfD that was a keep shouldn't matter, because here we are evaluating just this one, rather than all of them as a group. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Too narrow in scope to be a useful portal, plus it's abandoned anyway. Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 27 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.