Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Library and information science

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) 02:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Library and information science[edit]

All 21 selected articles have never been updated since their creation. Sixteen selected articles from March 2007. Three from November 2013. Two from January 2015. All 15 selected bios have not been updated since they were created in March 2007. Topics not well chosen (e.g. intellectual property and Censorship). Selections about American libraries and librarians overrepresented.

Errors

Selected biography/15, E. J. Josey died in 2009
Selected article/15 contained a test edit that remained live for almost 16 months

Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Postpone deletion and give it until the end of the calendar year for improvement? I for one will be more active now that I know it's languishing. Her Pegship (really?) 23:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC) See comment of 9/14/2019 below. Her Pegship (really?) 22:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Her Pegship I have no doubt you mean well, but please reconsider. You abandoned this portal almost 13 years ago (until this MfD spurred you to make a single 0 byte edit) and in the last six months, over 800 out of approximately 1500 existing portals have been deleted at MfD for the same reasons this one has been nominated (ex. Portal:Computer science, Portal:Moon, Portal:Jupiter, Portal:Ottoman Empire, Portal:Armenia). Portals need ongoing maintenance from a team of dedicated maintainers and for over a decade, this portal hasn't had it. There is 15 years of hard evidence that portals in general are a failed solution in search of a problem. The C-Class article Library and its multiple versatile navboxes do a far better job informing and navigating readers around this topic then this abandoned portal does. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade, save some one-off maintenance by passing editors. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Pegship, who dumped it in December 2006. While this portal's creation shortly pre-dates that exact wording of POG, the long-term point remains the same: this is a portal that should not exist. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has had over a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a low 76 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head articles Library and information science had 162 views per day and Library had 1,485 views per day, both in the same period).

POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but while Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries is active, the portal has only been mentioned on the talk page twice, and both times the primary focus was other stuff: once in July 2008 and in March 2009, 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 Library and information science is not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This one hasn't even attracted the attentions of its creator, who as NH12 notes seems to have been unaware of the POG warning "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create".

I am very unimpressed by Her Pegship's comment above that they will be more active now that I know it's languishing. An actual maintainer doesn't wait a decade until there is an MFD before doing anything. Portals need multiple active mainatiners, but this portal has none ... and as Newshunter12 notes the WikiProject is uninterested, so it fails another of POG's crucial tests. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question on backlinks. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if this discussion is closed as delete, I suggest that the backlinks be removed. I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries, but in this case I see no suitable alternative portals. Does anyone else see a viable alternative? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader. If this portal uses partial copies of articles as subpages, it should also be recognized that the risk of presenting incorrect information to the reader is high, because copied subpages are not updated when the articles are updated. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon When something has been abandoned to rot for over a decade, of course it is doing harm. Asking for detailed lists of every shortcoming is unhelpful. Numerous failings of WP:POG have already been described in detail above. This isn't the first time you've posted wiki-lawyering nonsense at MfD and I respectfully ask that you desist because it's not helpful. As has already been described to you in detail on your talk page, it's critical that any portal failing POG be uprooted to protect the integrity of the rest of portal space. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newshunter12 - Save your civility violations for the portal platoon and others who disagree substantively. That sort of comment isn't conducive to collaborative editing or collaborative cleanup of the portal mess. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question to User:Pegship - Did you assume that once portals come into existence, there are volunteer portal maintainers who look for unmaintained portals to maintain them? Where do you think portal maintenance comes from? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment to User:UnitedStatesian - This is another portal whose history has been complicated by your one-person portal moving campaign. Perhaps you have now heeded the admonition of User:Northamerica1000. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

@Robert McClenon: exactly how have my actions complicated the history of this portal? UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:UnitedStatesian - It appears that I had written that in connection with another portal and put the comment in the wrong MFD. I apologize for putting it in the wrong place, and have struck the comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comments regarding my motives and actions, I'm surprised at the use of words like "abandoned" and "dumped" and the sarcastic rhetorical questions and statements regarding what I know/knew or expect/ed. Rather than defend the creation or (lack of) maintenance of the portal, or explain my "0 byte" edit or any other action or motive, I completely withdraw my suggestion. For what it's worth. Her Pegship (really?) 19:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Her Pegship If that's the case, could you please strike your original vote and comment for the closer's convenience? Newshunter12 (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unmaintained portal, without prejudice against re-creation with a maintenance plan with at least two maintainers and with a design that does not use content-forked subpages, which increase the need for maintenance and are subject to rot. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My efforts over the last six months to take the first step to improve this portal by moving it to Portal:Libraries to match the name of both an active WikiProject and a much more heavily viewed article were repeatedly blocked. Oh well. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose re-creation per Mark Schierbecker and Newshunter12. Topic fails POG as it has not attracted maintainers, and its pageviews are relatively low, so readers would be better served via the related articles. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:03, 24 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.