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) 03:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Rock climbing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-portal abandoned since 2011. No list of topics or rotation of content, just a few static pages abandoned since 2011.

Created[1] in February 2011‎ by Cj005257 (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2018.

Only a few sub-pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Rock climbing:

• Portal:Rock climbing/did you know. No new entries since Feb 2011[2]. .Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this eight-year-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA
• Portal:Rock climbing/selected image. Same image (File:Climing anchor.JPG) since 2011.[3]
• Portal:Rock climbing/selected, same topic (Deep-water soloing) since 2011[4]

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.

In theory, this might a broad topic. But in practice, it has not 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, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 6 pageviews per day

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the magical thinking 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, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked sub-pages; instead they should build a modern, low-maintenance portal without content-forked sub-pages.

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) 00:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think that "broad area" should be the principal factor in determining whether a portal is in order. See The Problems with Portals. However, this one isn't being used anyway and can be dynamited. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do think that breadth-of-subject-area can be used a the principal factor in in a portal's deletion discussion, since that is a requirement established by the WP:POG guideline, and this portal doe not meet that requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: abandoned portals serve no purpose. Potentially of wide enough scope, no prejudice to curated recreation. SITH (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Abandoned draft, 8 subpages, created 2011-02-10 17:50:42 by User:Cj005257, maintainer= User:Auric. Yet another fake portal, of the ONE of each kind. Portal:Rock climbing. Pldx1 (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop describing portals as Abandoned Drafts? They aren't even in the Draft namespace.--Auric talk 21:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop describing drafts as portals? The present draft navigates into ONE article and ONE picture, and this is so since 2011. Since nobody has any intent to work further and build an effective navigation tool, it's time to move this draft to the Deleted namespace. Pldx1 (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts are, by definition, located in the draft namespace. Therefore, this cannot be one. I'd automate, but there seems to be a prejudice against that now. The current raft of MfDs has rather a chilling effect against doing any great amount of work on portals, since it might be deleted at any time, for any reason.--Auric talk 15:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Pldx1 - I agree with User:Auric. If it is in portal space, and it is, it is a portal. It may be a "draft portal", but it is not a draft. Sometimes it is useful to use words precisely, and "draft", unqualified, in Wikipedia, refers to a page in draft space. This is a portal, even if it is an abandoned draft portal, and it is an abandoned portal. It needs deleting from portal space. We delete a lot of abandoned drafts from draft space here, but this is a portal. A draft is a draft article in draft space. This is an unfinished abandoned portal in portal space. It can be moved to bit bucket space or to dev/null or to a phantom settlement, but stop referring to it as a draft, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 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.