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) 00:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Created[1] in May 2010, it still was pretty much a nothingness by the time the WP:ENDPORTALS RFC closed in 2018: see that version[2].
@The Transhumanist did various tweaks to it, before converting[3] it Nov 2018 to a fully-automated portal which drew its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox ((Maine)). That made it a 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).
So today I reverted[4] it to a on-automated format. Note that I usually reverted to the last non-automated version, but in this case that version[5] had a weirdly broken layout ... so I chose the less broken version.
But whichever non-automated version is chosen — older non-broken version[6] or newer broken version[7] — this portal clearly falls a very long way short of the Per WP:PORTAL principle "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". This is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Maine.
Despite its population of only 1.4 million, some editors may feel that this qualifies as a broad topic per the WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". It has not attracted maintainers so far, but while that may change in the future, it is not fair to our readers to lure them to this abandoned relic in case that changes some day. And any editor wanting to build a portal which actually adds value for readers would do better to start afresh than to tweak this fossil.
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) 18:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We are deleting a number of portals on states in India, and they are more populated than most states in the United States including Maine. The real question is between an automated version, a manual version, and no version. The case has not yet been made to keep a manual version, and we know that automated portals are automated junk. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous proposal: The notion of deleting portals or other articles rather than enhancing them is the absolute height of laziness. If editors would spend a little more time working on articles rather than babbling on in these idiotic discussions, we might make a little progress. There is a portal for each of the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the five U.S. territories. I'm not sure why Maine is any less important. I have no connection to the State of Maine other than having a brother buried in York County. No wonder Wikipedia editors are losing interest. Really pissed off, Buaidh talkcontribs 20:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to abandon portals, do it en masse and not piecemeal. While we’re at it, why not do away with all categories, templates, projects, and articles. That would certainly reduce our workload. Buaidh talkcontribs 21:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to malign the supporters of this proposal, but I do think this is the height of stupidity. Buaidh talkcontribs 21:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buaidh: So what you're saying is that nothing should ever be deleted and that AfD, MfD and other deletion forums should not exist? Have you missed all the various discussions on various forums since March about the mass spam creation of unneeded portals for several months that resulted in the user behind most of them being topic banned? CoolSkittle (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heavens no. I just think we spend far too much time philosophizing about Wikipedia and far too little time improving Wikipedia. We have a whole cadre of editors who have deleted more articles than they have created. They should be ashamed! Buaidh talkcontribs 15:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buaidh: an attempt at civility and assuming good faith would help.
This is not an attempt to abandon portals. It is a proposal to delete one pseudo-portal which for ten years has abysmally failed to come anywhere near the WP:PORTAL, principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects".
One of the reasons why so many portals are abandoned relics like this one is that editors do indeed spend a little more time working on articles, i.e. actual articles rather than portals.
The reason is simple: editors concentrate on creating actual content, which is actually read, but readers don't use portals. In Jan–Feb 2019, Portal:Maine got 10 pageviews per day, compared with 2,999 views per day for the head article Maine.
As per the nomination, if you choose to build a portal on this topic which actually adds value to readers, then feel free to do so. But you won't get very far by raging that even though nobody built anything on the empty shell which you abandoned in 2009, it should be retained to waste the time of another few thousand readers, like the 3,909 whose time it wasted in 2018.
If there is anyone who should be ashamed here, it's the editor who rages in fury that the non-content-page which thet created and abandoned years ago night be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've created 88 portal pages over the past 12 years. I only coordinate one of those portals: Portal:Colorado. It is the responsibility of each WikiProject to maintain its own portal. If they can't, perhaps we should eliminate the WikiProject. I'm don't have enough energy to be furious. I'm seriously disappointed. I will gladly accept an apology. Buaidh talkcontribs 15:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've created 23,370 pages on the English language Wikipedia and a few more on sister projects over the past 12 years. Had I known that I would be held solely responsible for the maintenance of all these pages, I would have found something better to do with my time. What have you done with your time? Buaidh talkcontribs 20:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are any other US states without a portal? Might be weird to only have one state without one.. I'm sure this isn't the only portal that isn't active, so if that's the case shouldn't we be deciding to delete all inactive US State Portals? SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every other state has a portal. I think a bundled nomination makes the most sense. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Semmendinger and UnitedStatesian: So far as I am aware, no other US state portal is is in such appallingly abandoned condition. If either of you can identify one, I would be happy to be corrected. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I just took a look at 5 random state portals - Utah, Iowa, Ohio, Alabama, and North Dakota - and the only difference I see is that they have automatically updating lists making the portals look active. This is exactly the reason you gave above for deleting the Maine portal, so shouldn't we hold those automatically-updating portals to the same standards? Most have 12 years worth of edit history in the first 50 recent changes, they've clearly not been touched or maintained much since their creation. It seems like this nomination is mostly based on the fact that this looks abandoned... but am I understanding it correctly that you removed the automated features that all other state portals I looked at use? Because if that's what all the other portals are doing then we really should be creating an MfD to delete all of these autonomously-run portals. I really have no stake in this MfD which is why I don't care if it's deleted or saved, but it seems like if we're going to hold this portal to the same standards as the others it doesn't deserve to be deleted. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Semmendinger: I have not examined any of them to see whether their pre-automation state is as abysmal as this one. The page history alone won't tell you; it also involve scrutiny of the code of previous versions, examinations of subpages, checks whether any other subpages have deleted.
When I get around to scrutinising them, I will hold then to the same standards as I apply to all the hundreds of other portals I have scrutinised ... but I will not rush to judgement based on a drive-by assessment. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Right, what I'm saying is that most of these other portals seem to be in similar condition to this one. If you plan on going through them all anyway then it's fine, it just seemed a bit random that you started with Portal:Maine then. I just want to make sure that if this portal is deleted, the plethora of other US state portals of similar quality meet the same fate. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My work pattern here is to check sets of portals where the tracking cats indicate a possible problem. I don't have the energy to examine whole swathes of categories just in the hope of finding a problem. Basically, I follow the waning lights. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Portal:Maine - Abandoned draft of a portal, 16 subpages, created 2010-05-24 19:45:22 by User:Buaidh. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Saying Every other [US] state has a portal is a slightly deceptive. There are US states that have portals, like Portal:California, and there are US states whose WikiProject is so much "believed to be semi-active" that there is no flesh over the skeleton of their draft of a portal. Look at the "State Facts" of this Portal:Maine. Except from the name of the capital, quite everything is expired. Great occasion to say If editors would spend a little more time working on portals rather than babbling [...], we might make a little progress (I have corrected article into portal since we are talking about a portal, aren't we ?). Pldx1 (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. I will personally volunteer to update all 50 U.S. state, District of Columbia, and five U.S. territory portals on an annual basis if you wish. I'm 71 years old and suffer from an incurable blood cancer. I think we have cadre of lazy elitist know-it-alls. (No personal offense at all.) Buaidh talkcontribs 15:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support consensus building. I don't think If there is anyone who should be ashamed here, it's the editor who rages in fury that the non-content-page which thet (sic) created and abandoned years ago night (sic) be deleted. was appropriate. I'm totally done with this discussion. Good luck, Buaidh talkcontribs 16:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: a wholly convincing swathe of argument. ——SerialNumber54129 16:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pageviews tell it all. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Portals could have a future if the community was 10x its current size and had editors with the time/committment to make their own mini-main pages on a portal topic (it does still happen in some spots). It was a vision of WP that has not (yet) come to pass, and we are left with all these abandoned portals that only detract from the integrity of the quality of the project (and the main WP article on the topic, which should get the main focus of the editing resources available). BHG has been doing a lot of great work in this area, and while I have not participated in it, my impression is that BHG has gone to a lot of effort to make well reasoned cases and follow a consensus-building approach. That is to be commended. Unlike the increasingly redundant 1960s "Encyclopedia Britannica" sets in many houses, WP's creative destruction is what keeps it revelant. Ultimately, if an editor wants to re-activate a given portal they can; but it does not seem to be happening. Britishfinance (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is very disappointing that some editors continue to misrepresent POG as some sort of licence to litter Wikipedia with abandoned portals, just because 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) 18:13, 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.