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. (Feel free to create a redirect.) —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Portal:English language

Portal:English language ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neglected portal. The two previous MfDs centered on deleting and merging this portal with a completely duplicate portal. If you have Tylenol at the ready, you can read Levivich's explanation of how this tangled web was woven.

Hours before the last MfD was closed, this portal was reverted to the last non-automated version. This version of the page has one selected article from June 2013, one selected bio from July 2006, and one DYK from July 2006. The selected bio was automated in August 2018. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 22:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment – Pinging all participants at the first and second MfD discussions in a neutral manner, as per WP:APPNOTE: @ Legacypac, Robert McClenon, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Moxy, SmokeyJoe, Thryduulf, RockMagnetist, Levivich, Espresso Addict, and Fram:. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge and/or redirect per BD2412 below. Wug· a·po·des​ 23:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Keep Page looks fine and it's on an obviously broad topic. Portals don't have to have dynamic content so the lack of automated content changes isn't a factor for me. Wug· a·po·des​ 23:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Wug· WP:POG states that portals should have a minimum of 20 articles, while this one has two. It also says portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject English Language didn't get involved in either of the previous two MfD's or revitalize the portal. That the portal looks fine to you and you subjectively believe it's about a broad topic mean nothing under WP:POG. It completely fails these provisions of POG and more as described below. Newshunter12 ( talk) 07:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply

See my response to your same misreading of POG at the MFD for Portal:Language. Wug· a·po·des​ 00:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

And you can see my response there debunking your giant text wall about WP:POG, which applies to this portal as well. Newshunter12 ( talk) 01:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the nom and do not merge or redirect. This micro-portal has been abandoned for over a decade, save for some one off updates by passing editors. There are only two articles, when WP:POG requires a minimum of 20. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This decrepit portal has had over a decade of no steady maintainers and it had an abysmal 8 views per day from April 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article English Language had 9,408 views per day in the same period. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows the English Language is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 ( talk) 07:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete – Too few pageviews, too few articles. User:Wugapodes – What is the point to having a portal be about a broad subject area if the coverage is narrow? In the hope that other users will contribute? Experience has shown that they don't. I think that breadth of the subject area should be determined at least partly by the quantitative measure of the number of articles, not solely by an a priori assessment of the subject.

This table shows metrics for the English language and Language portals.

There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• • The purpose of a deletion discussion, for me, is not whether there is a reason to keep but a reason to delete. And in the same way that WP:N makes clear our inclusion policy for articles is not based on the state of the sourcing but the number of potential sources, my inclusion criteria for portals is based on the same principle: breadth of topic is not related to the number of items in the portal namespace but is related to the number of topics we have articles on. Anything else just seems to be an absurd twisting of the plain meaning of "broad topic" which is a measure of the topic not a measure of the state of the portal. Once it passes that bar, unless the portal reaches WP:TNT levels of disrepair, I don't see a reason to delete. If this were a derelict portal with broken sections and unusable by the few but existing readers it has, I would say blow it up. But this is a very normal looking portal of the kind I understand WP:ENDPORT to have found consensus to keep. Wug· a·po·des​ 00:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Wugapodes: 13 years after it was created, this portal is a static display of 5 items:

1. An excerpt of the lead of the head article English language
2. An excerpt of the lead of the article English grammar
3. An excerpt of the lead of the article William Shakespeare
4. A piece of unsourced trivia about the Oxford English Dictionary, falsely presented as if it was derived from DP:DYK
5. A category tree of Category:English language

There is no list of topic, no scroll-though of topics, not even alternative selection through the common but hideously unfriendly mechanism of purgeing the page.

This is pointless junk which adds no value at all over the head article English language. Luring readers to this abandoned page is waste of the their time and an insult to Wikipedia's reputation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

This is pointless junk see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The portal cannot both be unread and wasting readers' time; it is not possible to harm readers who do not exist. If you're correct that no one is reading this portal, then your presumed harms cannot possibly be a problem. I don't believe page views or surmountable problems are valid deletion criteria, and I already explained why I think this is suitable for inclusion. Since this portal has been in working order for 13 years and still works as intended, I don't see any reason to ignore my principle à la WP:TNT. Wug· a·po·des​ 03:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete – no page views, no maintenance, per nom and above delete votes – Leviv ich 22:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to Portal:Language. bd2412 T 04:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ bd2412 How does merging a portal that has been abandoned for over a decade with a portal that has been abandoned for six years suddenly make either portal comply with WP:POG? The facts are this portal is 18 articles short of POG's minimum of 20, has been abandoned for over a decade so has no maintainers, and has a background noise level of 8 views per day while the GA-Class head article has 9,408 views per day. It's time to just delete this junk over a decade of hard evidence shows readers and maintainers don't want. Newshunter12 ( talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete – per nom, and not redirect. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 18:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator, and do not merge or redirect.

There is clear evidence that this portal fails the POG requirements that it should attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. It also fails the POG requirement that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal" ... but the WikiProject has shown no interest in the portal since the previous MFDs six months ago.

I oppose the suggestions of merger, because in practice that would amount to transferring this portals's decade-old content forks to another portal. Those rotted content forks should be binned, not rehoused. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm suspicious of anything in POG being called a "requirement" considering how few editors at WP:POG2019RFC think it has sufficient consensus to be called a guideline. Wug· a·po·des​ 03:28, 6 September 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.