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) 03:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Quebec City[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned portal, on Quebec City. Two boxes, one of articles, one for biogs, but each has only two items, and none has been updated since 2010. This is just a set of 4 old content forks

Created[1] in June 2010 by Mathieugp (talk · contribs).

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Quebec City shows a modest set of sub-pages:

Portal:Quebec City/Selected article/1
Portal:Quebec City/Selected article/2
Portal:Quebec City/Selected biography/1
Portal:Quebec City/Selected biography/2

... but all are unchnaged since 2010. /Selected biography/2 still proclaims that Pauline Marois is leader of the PQ, a role she left in 2014.

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 100 updates. That's the nearly-universal problem with these collections of content forked sub-pages: they have to be maintained, but rarely are.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the B-class head article Quebec City.

WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This one has not attracted maintainers for 9 nine years, and the city has a population of only 500,000 ... so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted, with prejudice against re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BHG says. But does User:Mathieugp have any comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question what does with prejudice against re-creation mean exactly? If in two, five or ten years from now, someone with time on their hands want to recreate the portal, enrich it, automate the rotation of contents, etc., what will happen? Will this hypothetical someone be in trouble? I do not have time to work on updating the portal right now, but I do not see why Quebec City should not have its portal like so many other North-American cities. I do not see that any city-portal is very active anyway if you remove bots from the equation. ;-) Mathieugp (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mathieugp, some other city portals are indeed in a poor condition. That is why dozens of the worst of them have deleted at MFD in recent weeks. Sadly, this falls into the v poor category ... and the fact that some other not-as-bad-portals have not yet been deleted is no reason to keep this one.

After 9 years of neglect, one clearly fails the core point of POG, its lead, which currently reads bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create.

So ... you haven't had time to maintain this for 9 years, and still don't have time. Nobody else has maintained it. That's reason not to waste readers's time with it.

If someone wants to re-create this in future, they will need to go to DRV and show new evidence, or that portal policy has changed etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I get your points, but... Wikipedia Guidelines are standards that "should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense" and clearly the standard here fails in practice for lack of maintainers, as is the case for so many other things in Wikipedia. The guidelines assume a level of editor activity that simply isn't there. Following the same reasoning completely, we would be deleting a lot of things that probably should not. Hopefully, the outcome of WP:CFPORT will be more automation in portals, removing duplicated contents (that necessarily goes outdated eventually), therefore cutting on the manual maintenance for me... as well as the manual deletion for you! More time actually improving articles has to be a plus for everyone in our community. Don't you think? ;-) Mathieugp (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 22 subpages, created 2010-06-14 20:11:19 by User:Mathieugp. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Quebec City. Pldx1 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – In the absence of criteria WP: POG for cities and the exclusion of the parent portal Portal:Cities I understand that a portal about only one city is not a broad topic.Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:22, 30 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.