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) 01:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Sindh[edit]

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

Another abandoned portal on a province of Pakistan: Sindh.

Created[1] in August 2011‎ Mar4d (talk · contribs), who also created most of the sub-pages.

It escaped the rash of conversion to an automated fork of a single navbox (For a full explanation of why that 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).

However it seems never to have had an active maintainer, and the list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Sindh is sparse:

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 90 consecutive updates. 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 Sindh and its navbox ((Sindh topics)).

In theory, this province of 47 million people is a broad topic. But in practice, it has never 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.

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the dream that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal which actually adds value for readers, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages. There several available styles, including the very difft approaches used at Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Portal:Geophysics.

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) 22:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it is, this portal is not particularly useful for anyone who would use such a portal. Rebuilding it from the ground up would be much more convenient than trying to fix it as it is. Rlin8 (☎·✎·📧) 23:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:PORTAL requires portals have active maintenance, not the case here.
  2. WP:POG could be met, but as BHG says, it never has been here.
  3. The portal is a fork of the head article and its navbox.
SITH (talk) 10:50, 14 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