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) 03:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Igbo people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Similar to the outcome of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Yoruba people, this portal now exclusively redirects from subpages of Portal:Nigeria, and does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This portal has 10 daily pageviews, as opposed to 1491 daily pageviews for the article. Is the portal being maintained? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding portal maintenance Portal:Igbo people/Selected article's content has not been changed since it was created in 2008. Some very basic maintenance (i.e. matching the subpage name to the portal name) occurred earlier this month. Same for Portal:Igbo people/Selected picture, Portal:Igbo people/Did you know, and Portal:Igbo people/Selected biography. Aside from an image change in 2014, the substance of Portal:Igbo people—the main page—has not changed since 2008 (a flurry of basic maintenance occurred in the past two months). -Indy beetle (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I'm just finding out Portal Yoruba was deleted, and now this? We all know or should know that portals are not easy to create or edit - especially for newbies. Therefore, if there is a problem, editors who are competent in it should try to help out and fix the issues rather than nominating them for deletion. Many African related portals that indeed deserve a portal have been deleted, and we all know the systematic bias on Wikipedia especially when it relates to the so called Sub Saharan Africa. Both Yoruba and Igbo portals are not only of interest to Nigeria, but to the African diaspora with countless of relevant articles many of which probably have not been indexed. If there are problems because of this "new rule" that seem to popped out from nowhere (or becoming more highly enforced all of a sudden) then editors should help out and fix the problem rather than nominating important portals for deletion. Nominating is easy, but actually taking the time to fix the problem is not. I have helped out with many portals over the years so I know the amount of work that goes into it. I strongly oppose this silly and lazy nomination in the strongest possible terms. This is just terribly sad..Tamsier (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If "Yoruba and Igbo portals are not only of interest to Nigeria, but to the African diaspora", then why are they hardly getting any views? The point of portals is to serve as enhanced main pages to topics i.e. redirect users to content or help them navigate it. Articles are not judged by page views, because the inclusion criteria for them is notability. Portals exist largely on the basis that they are used and prove useful. The Igbo portal, most of it being over 10 years old, seems to fail at that. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's true that portals are not easy to create or edit, but that means we can assume that any editor who does create a portal is fairly sophisticated at editing Wikipedia. I didn't make my first edit to portalspace until nearly 6 months after I became an administrator, and almost 3 years after I started editing. Hence, biting the newcomers is unlikely to be a problem when we are dealing with nominating portals for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who creates a multi-page portal without it having glaring errors is probably a fairly sophisticated error. However, I've seen many part-created abandoned portals created by newbies (less likely now as portal pages can't be created by absolute newbies). Portal:Rhetoric is an example of a portal creation as an editor's first edit. DexDor ^(talk) 07:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, any editor who creates a multi-page portal is probably a fairly sophisticated editor even if the portal does have some glaring errors. Notwithstanding the fact that Portal:Rhetoric was created as the editor's first edit, the fact that the editor decided to create a portal is itself evidence of sophistication. It's like what Yogi Berra said he would do if he found a wallet on the street with a million dollars inside: "If the guy was real poor, I'd give it back to him." Similarly, any argument that we should make allowances for a portal because it was created by an unsophisticated newbie is not going to work for me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I don't know why this was not mentioned, but the nominator herein unilaterally performed the redirection of Igbo portal's subpages to the Nigeria portal's subpages (e.g. diff, diff). I'm not saying this was right or wrong, but it is peculiar for this to have not been mentioned in the nomination, in my opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the difs. So they redirected this portal's sub pages days in advance and few days later nominated this portal for deletion with the above rationale? That is worrying, regardless of the outcome here.Tamsier (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unused and unmaintained portals fail WP:PORTAL. SITH (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not so clear - Abandoned portal, 36 subpages, created 2008-07-21 23:46:30 by User:Ukabia, never maintained until now. It seems that an unilateral merge into Portal:Nigeria is already in progress. Why not! Concerning the assertions of User:Tamsier, it would be interesting to include the deletions of Portal:Volume and Portal:East Midlands England in the picture. Pldx1 (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not a broad topic area (it's a very small part of the encyclopedia) so the article and Wikipedia:WikiProject Igbo (which also has a list of articles to be created) are sufficient. The keep !vote above mentions the amount of work that has gone into the portal (i.e. sunk cost), but that's not a good reason to keep; deleting it will prevent further time being spent/wasted on this portal and make it less likely that editors will be misguided into spending time making similar portals. DexDor ^(talk) 07:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails 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 is a narrow topic which has attracted no maintainers and hardly any readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Can someone please explain to me about the redirection of pages while the status of this portal is still under discussion? Is this a case of trying to create a local fait accompli? Should I strike my Delete vote pending an explanation? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The redirection of pages took place before the discussion opened. It was my good-faith attempt to save the content somewhere even if deletion was the conclusion, (like we did with Portal:Tobago) which I thought would be what people would favor. Happy to reverse if people have an issue. The content of Portal:Igbo people (and the breadth of its subject area) is identical whether the subpages reside there or are redirected from elsewhere. UnitedStatesian (talk)

• Delete Per nom. Another abandoned portal that adds little beyond being an out-of-date copy-and-paste of the main artice+navbox with some DYKs and other facts. As with other portal MfDs, this portal only depreciates the quality of the main article+navbox, and gives the impression this topic is abandoned and forgotten on WP (which it is not). Britishfinance (talk) 14:45, 29 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.