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) 08:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Lahore[edit]

Portal:Lahore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neglected portal.

• Average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019 are 8 for the portal versus 1955 for the parent article (.41%).
• Created in 2009 by the only maintainer, Nomi887, who very sporadically maintained it throughout 2009. They last edited in June 2019.
• Seventeen selected articles, none of which were extensively updated since 2009 outside of routine maintenance.

Time to just delete this already. ToThAc (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This table compares remaining city portals in Pakistan against Portal:Pakistan.

Pakistani City Portals[edit]

Lahore[edit]

• Delete as per nominator - The portal had an average of 8 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019. There has been no substantive maintenance to the portal in ten years.
• The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore 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. (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.) Common sense 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 selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (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 maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies). Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable. Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
• User:BrownHairedGirl - Moving the backlinks to Portal:Pakistan may be in order.
• Too few articles, no maintenance on the articles, little viewing of the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 19 October 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) (in this case Portal:Pakistan), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and per Robert McClenon. Yet another long-neglected portal on an overly-narrow topic. The last 7 months of MFD scrutiny of portals has repeatedly shown that it is very rare for even the most populous global cities to attract enough readers and maintainers to a portal to make the portal viable.

In this case, the portal has failed abysmally, with readership levels barely above background noise, and a long-term lack of maintenance apart from minor tweaking.

There is no indication of any interest in the portal. There never been any discussion at Portal talk:Lahore, and while there is a WikiProject Lahore, it has had no human posts since 2014, so per Template:WikiProject status#Usage:_Inactive_projects I have tagged it[1] as inactive. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lahore has never had any mention of this portal, and whatlinkshere shows no interest from any other project.

So we have an almost-unread portal, long neglected, with no interest from any WikiProject ever. Even its creator Nomi887 (talk · contribs) last edited any part of the portal in August 2009, only 6 months after its creation[2] in Feb 2009 (see Nomi887's portals-pace contribs).

There is just no basis for keeping this portals. It should have been deleted years ago. If anyone wants an indication of why it has lingered so long, look at the talk page, where there is a WikiProject Portals banner but no assessment, and no cleanup tag on the Portal:Lahore. The Portals project has shown almost no interest in cleaning up the sea of abandoned junk portals, which could and should have been ongoing ask driven by the project itself; but instead they left portalspace to rot en masse, and now complain bitterly that others are doing their housework. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, per the delete votes above, and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the poor 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, like an article is, since they are for navigation instead. It is therefore improper to use rationales meant for keeping articles to argue that this failed navigation device should be kept. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised or done 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. The community's consensus not to delete all portals is not a consensus to keep all portals; instead they are to be evaluated individually, as is being done here. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve old and 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, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we don't need city portals period.Catfurball (talk) 21:12, 24 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.