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) 07:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Grand Canyon[edit]

Abandoned mini-portal.

Created[1] in December 2016‎ by Redolta (talk · contribs), who created image subpages, but no subpages for articles.

In May 2018, Auric (talk · contribs) created Portal:Grand Canyon/Selected article/1 and Portal:Grand Canyon/Selected biography/1 so that the portal finally had some text content.

In September 2018‎, @The Transhumanist coverted[2] it to full-automated portal which drew its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox ((Grand Canyon)). That made it just a bloated, redundant fork of the navbox. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

In May 2019 BHG restored[3] the portal to its pre-automation state.

However, it still remains a static display of two articles and rotating set of only 5 pictures. /Selected article/1 and /Selected biography/1 remain unchanged, and Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Grand Canyon shows only a small set. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Grand Canyon

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 20 consecutive updates.

I am unsure whether the Grand Canyon is a broad topic; it could been seen a narrow topic copiously documented. But in practice, it has not met 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". This has not attracted maintainers.

If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this one with its content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages, as has recently been done with Portal:Geophysics. Or take a difft approach, such as Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The head article has 2819 daily page views. The portal has 2 daily page views. (That is 115 page views in two months.) That is a 1400:1 ratio, but the ratio is less important than the raw fact that this is a portal that no one uses. The originator has not edited for a few months. The choices are to use the rudimentary portal, to use an automated portal. to wait for a portal maintainer, or to delete the portal and then wait for a portal author and maintainer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Robert's reasoning. No prejudice against recreation as, while a single geographical feature, it has been extensively studied and documented, so it may pass WP:POG. SITH (talk) 11:47, 17 May 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.