Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:French Guiana

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. All deleted pages are inherently "archived" and can be restored at any time. ‑Scottywong | [gossip] || 15:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:French Guiana

Minimal portal about a narrow topic (country subdivisions). It presents only tranclusions of the article French Guiana when not just only one article per section. It is totally redundant with the article French Guiana. It is not supported by a wikiproject that provides ways to expand it. Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like many of the small-country portals deleted previously, this one is unlikely to be supported by a sufficiently broad set of content or maintainers. The article, cat tree and navboxes function more than adequately. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the first Portal MFD since the arbitration case closed. ミラ P 02:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This portal is underviewed, underdeveloped, and undermaintained. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:French_Guiana appears to show 2 articles and 1 biography, which on its face is just barely enough to avoid WP:P2. Further examination shows that article 1 and article 4 are the same, so that there are only two articles. The portal had an average of 7 daily pageviews in calendar 2019, which is no more than noise level, as opposed to 2506 for the head article. The article subpages were last content-forked in 2016. The portal qualifies for P2, but we are here. The arbitration didn't address the fact that there are still many underviewed and undermaintained portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Portal originated in 2012 by editor who was banned in 2014 for sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archive. Nation portals can’t escape inherent NPOV challenges. Nations are better covered under Portal:Geography, and under Portal:Society. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archive. Since there are no guidelines for portals we should shelf this one until one is put into place. I really think editors should cease portal deletions until this happens as we have already have an ARBCOM case regarding the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Archive" mean? Would we suspend the MfD until we have criteria to judge against, or retain the portal but hide it from readers in some way, or something else? Certes (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archive means placing a tag on the page just as any other archived page would be. Right now there is editor fatigue regarding portal discussion, and a lot of other things on Wikipedia that need the attention more. I know this isn't a solution that is ideal but at least it gives a talking point on a possible discussion example going forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any precedent for leaving archived historical pages in portalspace? Userfication or a moving to a subpage of WP:WikiProject South America/French Guiana work group both make sense as solid WP:ATDs, but portalspace is intended to be ~~user~~ (user is ambiguous in this context my mistake) reader-facing. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- One method of archiving is to redirect to the main article, French Guiana.

Another method is to tag & move it and all subpages to a subpage of the most relevant WikiProject page, in this case Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/French Guiana work group. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe:Thanks for the clarification, I was a bit confused by some of the above comments. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a good question. There has not been much archiving of Portals, with the portal critics seeming to much prefer deletion. I had briefly forgotten that Portal Space is reader-facing that should not have archived pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to French Guiana, with making this a sub-page of the working group as a second choice. There is very limited guidance for portalspace so this is largely a WP:COMMONSENSE !vote. There is no existing model for portals that have little to no recognized content, perhaps there will be one in the future, but there isn't currently. Due to Wikipedia:Systemic bias there are 6 total FAs and GAs for this portal to draw from (see here); all of them are peripheral to the subject, and only 2 of the B-class articles avoid that categorization. While this is not a WP:P2 as there are more than 3 non-stub articles detailing the subject matter, the margin by which this passes that low hurdle is surprisingly narrow. Nonetheless deletion is premature while the community is sill making up its mind on what should be in portalspace, especially given available WP:ATDs. Of the two options I prefer redirect, as any limited resources WP:SOUTHAM has to devote to this area would presently be better spent on getting more articles in this area to GA/FA status, however that is only one editor's opinion, and others may take it for what it's worth. There should be no prejudice to either future restoration or future deletion if there is a reconsideration of this that occurs following the adoption of new guidelines by the community. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Future restoration is a matter for discussion and consensus on the redirect talk page. That discussion should not be brought to mfd or DRV. The archiving of portals should not be considered deletion discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SmokeyJoe: Agree, I guess what is why trying to say is that this discussion should not be considered binding precedent in any way. New guidelines could make this a glaringly obvious keep or delete or something else, and the decision we reach here should not control outcomes in any future discussions once that happens, be they here, on redirect talk pages, or somewhere else. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2020 (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.