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: keep. So as long as there are maintainers actively working on this, seeing as a number of keeps here are conditional on there being maintainers; otherwise this might return to MFD. It seems like there is no concern about the topic being too narrow (->and thus unsuitable for portals per WP:POG) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Nigeria[edit]

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

Abandoned portal on the African nation of Nigeria.

Created[1] in November 2006‎ by Toussaint (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2011.

Converted[2] in January 2019‎ by @The Transhumanist to an automated format which drew its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox ((Nigeria topics)). That made it simply a bloated and 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).

Reverted[3] by BHG on 12 May 2019‎ to the last non-automated version.

Despite being twelve years old, this is a bare start. It's a static page, because as Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Nigeria shows, there is only one of each type of sub-page:

That's all.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is a massively less useful page than the head article Nigeria and its navbox ((Nigeria topics)).

In theory, a country is inherently a broad topic. But WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and in practice this has not had builders, let alone maintainers. If any editor wants to build a portal on this topic which actually adds value for readers, they would do much better to start afresh and build a new, low-maintenance portal. Examples of how this can be done can be seen at at the very different Portal:Harz Mountains and Portal:Geophysics. And meanwhile, the current page is just a waste of readers' s time.

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) 01:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS Since @UnitedStatesian has offered to rebuild this portal, I would be happy to support draftifying the portal as an alternative to deletion. I still think that it would be better to WP:TNT it and start afresh, then draftifying it pending a rebuild would be the next best thing.
As noted below, moving a portal to draft space doesn't work for technical reasons, so the best way to draftify it is to move it without redirects to an alternative title in portal space. In discussion at WT:WPPORT, the preferred way to do this is to prefix it with "Ω draft" or "Ω incubator", so that in this it would be a move of Portal:Nigeria to Portal:Ω draft — Nigeria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A WikiProject notification is is unlikely to produce results, because a) portals are complex and need a lot of work, b) not many editors want to work on pages which attract so few readers.
So I still firmly believe that TNT is a much better solution than trying to breathe life into an abandoned corpse.
But if anyone still clings to the hope of resurrection in this case, then I'd be happy to support draftification. That way the pages remain for the use f anyone who wants to work on them, but readers's time is not wasted until something worthwhile is produced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As has been discussed many times before, draftification is not a feasible option for portals due to technical issues. This is independent of WP:DUD, an essay which I disagree with. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pythoncoder: To test that claim that {tq|draftification is not a feasible option for portals due to technical issues)), I created a multi-subpage portal in portalspace and moved it first to a difft title in portalspaceband then to my userspace. There was one minor prob with the archives, but it was easily identifiable, and was fixed before the moves. Try it for yourself, at User:BrownHairedGirl/Incubator — Ballyporeen. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added myself as a portal maintainer on this one. Note that the current events now update automatically, with the last update 3 days ago. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Similar wording has been i place for over 12 years. The lead of the September 2006‎ version says Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance.
It is very disappointing that some editors continue to misrepresent POG as some sort of license to litter Wikipedia with abandoned portals, just becuase the scope is broad enough. POG is very clear that scope is a necessary condition, but an insufficient one: the portal must also be maintained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But @BrownHairedGirl: this portal in no longer abandoned, and so I request in the interest of saving time that you now withdraw this one MfD nomination, as I did with Portal:Geophysics when a maintaining editor stepped forward; I don't see how this is a different case than that one (and in fact 50 pageviews a day is enormous for the portalspace). UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UnitedStatesian, I withdrew another one when significant improvements had been made. I would do the same here if that applied, but it doesn't. That's why I think that draftification is the appropriate move here. As I noted above, it is technically feasible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: let me know when you have changed the nomination; it still says delete, not draftify. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UnitedStatesian, I still think that TNT is the best option, to get rid of the ancient subpages and all the structure that goes with them. But as above, draftify is the next best. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – @StraussInTheHouse: Per the above about having a maintainer, "if one can be found, great, if not, then...", UnitedStatesian added themselves as a maintainer of the portal on 13 May 2019 (UTC) (diff). North America1000 19:01, 15 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.


More