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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Despite some updates the portal seems abandoned for a decade. This subject is already properly addressed in the Portals Portal:LGBT, Portal:Gender studies and Portal:Human sexuality, its a desnecessary sub portal. Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the subject is not addressed in Portal:Human sexuality. Sexuality =/= Gender. I'll review this nomination in a bit, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The portal has 58 daily pageviews, which is high compared to other portals, but the article has 5527 daily pageviews. The originator has been inactive since 2013. Unmaintained portals are a form of litter by the side of the information superhighway. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: is this portal any better or worse than the average portal? Last year there was an RfC on whether the portal system should end, with the nominator arguing that portals in general were unpopular with both editors and readers. The result was a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @WanderingWanda: I'm pretty sure if there was an absolute average portal, this one would it. It's why I am rather neutral. However, I can confidently assure you that Portal:LGBT is much better than the average portal. If there was one I'd have to recommend people put their focus on out of the two, it would be the latter. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean Keep: I've been familiarizing myself with wikipedia portals and have just begun updating this one. Since lack of maintenance seems to be a main concern, hopefully I am helping on that front. As or any of the portals above making this one unnecessary, they all don't seem to cover that much on transgender topics on their pages and subportals seem to already be a norm from a glance at the list of portals. Rab V (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A rare event occurred ! A keep !voter doing the maintenance work !!! So many people should take example ! Moreover, User:Rab V could fill the maintainer= field, to assert that this portal is maintained. Side remark: 58 page views per day is an extraordinary high score for a portal. Portal:Donald Trump is not far better with 59 page views par day. Pldx1 (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: if this is getting 58 pageviews a day when it hasn't even been being maintained, and someone has just recently set about maintaining it, perhaps we should put off deleting it for a month or two and see how things look after maintenance. I don't personally see much benefit to portals in general, and I'm not sure how often they should be updated (more than "once since 2009", yes, but I'm guessing not "daily" if even "popularly viewed" ones only get ~60 pageviews a day. monthly?), but I'd be willing to help e.g. supply some candidates for "Did you know?" (e.g., Jennie June could furnish one or more). And we have a lot more biographies to pick from by now for the featured bio section (e.g., Nicole Maines, or indeed the aforementioned Jennie June, and more if this portal is intended to also cover non-binary people). -sche (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: I updated the DYKs (1, 2, 3) with new hooks; the first one or two on each page are from the main-page DYK archive and the others are new: if it is still strictly necessary for hooks to first appear on the main page, let me know and I will see about submitting them and looking for other mainpage-featured hooks in the meantime. -sche (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per -sche, and because the area of trans and non-binary topics is large enough to merit a portal separate from LGBT. I am not familiar with portal maintenance, but have been active on editing trans and non-binary articles (and images), so could learn and pitch in to help keep this current. Funcrunch (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral to keeping the portal with the condition that it be eligible for renomination in 60 days if it is not being maintained as agreed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'll throw in my !vote here. If it seems like we have some support for maintaining this, then I think this could be a net benefit to the project. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: glad to see the can-do attitude of the fixes after the nomination. Of course, per Robert, portals do need ongoing maintenance, but right now, it's wide enough in scope, it has an active maintainer and it doesn't just fork navboxes. SITH (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline; can be more than adequately covered by Portal:Gender. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: just for the benefit of disclosure, it might be worth mentioning that Portal:Gender is a recently renamed version of Portal:Gender studies (so recent that even SITH's !vote above precedes it). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:10, 28 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.