Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Zoroastrianism (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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Zoroastrianism

 * – (View MfD)

Portal created in 2005, abandoned in 2007 and briefly touched for the last time in 2008 around the time of its first MfD. 294 edits by 71 users.

This portal is half content fork and half blatant POV. Apart from a period in 2007 when some monthly updates were held, it has never been seriously maintained; it even links a non-existing portal on Wikinews. The featured articles were content-forked in 2008 and never updated since. What's worse, they have nothing to do with zoroastrianism, or they don't bother to explain apart from maybe mentioning zoroastrianism once in the footnote (check Bhikaiji Cama, Feroze Gandhi and Jamsetji Tata), therefore they only end up being a parochial unsourced showcase of "look how important zoroastrianism is" without any real information being conveyed to the reader. Nemo 16:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The table below shows metrics for portals for the major Southwest Asian religions.
 * 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.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

 * Comment - There has been some maintenance, because 5 of the 12 articles have been converted from content forks to transclusion. The portal had an average of 30 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete without prejudice to a single-page portal with at least two maintainers and not using content-forked subpages. This portal was apparently abandoned during improvement and is not being maintained.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 6 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:Religion), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, and per the fact there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the 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, being for navigation instead, so it is improper to try to compare dilapidated and useless portals to articles and say they should just be fixed. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised 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. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve potentially 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, as proposed by BrownHairedGirl, to avoid surprising our readers. The first MfD is yet another case study into why last minute edits and promises of maintenance are not long-term solutions to portals like this. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:58, 8 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.