Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Globalization

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Globalization[edit]

Nine never-updated selected articles created in June 2013. One entry has had live vandalism since December 2016. Millennium Development Goals needs to be put into past tense.

Twelve never-updated selected bios from June 2013. Zygmunt Bauman died in January 2017, Ulrich Beck died in January 2015 and Immanuel Wallerstein died in August 2019 Mark Schierbecker (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: important topic but it would take a gigantic effort to produce and maintain a meaningful portal. We clearly don't have the resources to do it. Nemo 20:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to a design that does not use content-forked subpages and has maintainers.
Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Globalization shows, among other things, 12 articles and 12 persons. None of them have been updated since 2013. The portal has 17 average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, while the article has 5181. There is no maintenance at all. The errors cited by the nominator show that maintenance is even more critical when content-forked subpages that can become incorrect are used, but actually illustrate that content-forked subpages are a flawed design.
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. A portal that is only seldom viewed, less than 25 average views per day, does not seem to provide much value. A portal that is not actively being maintained (preferably by at least two editors to provide backup), especially one that has not been maintained for several years, especially in a subject area that is evolving or changing, does not provide current value. A portal that has only a small set of articles does not serve any purpose as a navigation tool and is not consistent with a broad subject area. I have reverted the vandalism. I am not waving a dead rat, because the design is a rat house. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nemo. No maintenance at all, also a potential vandalism-magnet. --Darwinek (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per delete votes above, per WP:TNT, and per the fact there is no good reason to keep portals that are in this state. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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) without creating duplicate entries. In this case the closest fit is Portal:Business; I know it's not a perfect fit, because globalisation involves a lot more than business and economics ... but on balance, I think that this is the best option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another abandoned portal with no maintainers in sight, serving up outdated info to readers while the articles are up-to-date. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.