Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:2000s

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:2000s

Undeveloped portal. Six selected articles, one bio created in May.

Selected articles one, four and five were created in 2012, never updated.

Selected articles two, three and six were created in October 2017, never updated.

Did you know created in 2016, never updated. Entries are vapid:

Did you know

"...that the release of Apple's app store revolutionized the mobile gaming industry?"
"...that the USB flash drive was "replacing" the floppy disk during the 2000s, and by 2007, computers with pre-installed floppy drives were rare?"
"...that even with the crash of Air France Flight 4590, the only fatal crash involving the Concorde, it along with fears caused by 9/11 and a decision made by Airbus shut down the whole Concorde system?" Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As of this post, in the last thirty days, the portal has received an average of 104 page views per day and 3,217 actual page views – see Pageviews Analysis. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. While it's true this portal has a much higher viewing rate than most other portals at 85 per day from January 1 2019 to June 30, it still fails other parts of WP:POG, which states portals should be about a "broad subject area, which is likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." (Emphasis mine) This portal has been abandoned progressively over the last 7 years, with final abandonment around 2017, and is 14 articles short of POG's minimum of 20 articles.

High viewing rates are a big negative when the information being displayed is outdated or inaccurate, such as with this portal. How much damage has been done to Wikipedia's reputation for quality when readers saw this junk portal, we will never know. One off maintenance is not enough to stave off deletion. This portal would need a large team of maintainers to meet WP:POG and it doesn't have it as seven years of hard evidence shows, so it is time to delete it. Remember, crud, even high viewed crud, is still crud. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly redundant to the article 2000s (decade), most importantly to the article's navigation features including wikilings, categories, and content anchored to sources and core content policies. This portal doesn't even seem to have a corresponding WikiProject taskforce page. If many readers are reading it, they are being waylaid away from a better service at 2000s (decade). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12 + @SmokeyJoe. This is yet another long-abandoned mini-portal, whose selected articles consist of only 6 outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago. I had identified it months ago as a portal overdue for deletion, but had not found the time to write up a nomination.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This is arguably a broad subject area, but while it is has attracted a reasonable number of readers (an average of 85 per day in January–June 2019, which is not far below my rough target of a minimum of 100 per day), it has not attracted any maintainers. So those 85 readers per day are being lured to a woefully small set of abandoned junk.

@SmokeyJoe is right that this portal is wholly redundant to the article 2000s (decade). The article 2000s (decade) has vastly better navigation than the portal, and avoids the strange selection quirks of the portal. Readers are much better served by the head article.

I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader. If this portal uses partial copies of articles as subpages, it should also be recognized that the risk of presenting incorrect information to the reader is high, because copied subpages are not updated when the articles are updated. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert McClenon, the harm done is that, as DexDor often reminds us, like any substandard portals, it wastes the time of readers who would be better directed to the head article than lured to an abandoned page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to a properly designed re-creation that doesn't use subpages. I concur with the analyses by User:Mark Schierbecker, User:Newshunter12, and User:BrownHairedGirl. The portal guidelines (and, if they are not guidelines, Wikipedia common sense and common sense) pose a three-part test, that portals should be about broad subjects that will attract large numbers of readers and portal maintainers. It doesn't matter whether the topic is a priori a broad area, so much as whether a broad area has been covered by the portal. The portal has 7 articles, which is not broad coverage, and it has not been maintained. However, readers are interested in a portal on the decade. If an editor is willing to implement a new portal using an architecture that does not use subpages and so requires less maintenance (but is not maintenance-free), and is willing to maintain the portal, a new portal should be welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 23 August 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.