Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Photography

:{{pagelinks|Portal:Photography}} – (View MfD)

Neglected portal.

Nine never-updated selected articles created in December 2006.

Eleven selected bios created in December 2006. One was updated in October 2007. One was updated in December 2016.

;Errors

• Kodachrome was discontinued in 2009.
• The Canon EOS-1D X was succeeded in 2016.
• The Canon EOS 6D's claim to being the smallest and lightest full frame camera is out of date. Three Canon FF mirrorless cameras launched this year alone are lighter.

Mark Schierbecker (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - This is a relatively well-viewed but unmaintained portal. In the first half of 2019, the portal had [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-01-01&end=2019-06-30&pages=Portal:Photography | 61] average daily pageviews, while the article had 644 average daily pageviews.
• The portal was originated in 2006, but the originator has been inactive since 2007, and there has never been another maintainer.
• As noted by the nominator, User:Mark Schierbecker, Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Photography/ shows 9 general articles and 11 biographies, but has slots for 20 articles and 20 biographies, the other half of which have never been used. (Expansion may have been planned but never happened.) They were content-forked in 2006. Most of them have been unchanged, or were edited between 2010 and 2014.
• As noted by the nominator, content-forked subpages are prone to content rot, and are an unsound architecture.
• Photography is a visual art, and backlinks can be redirected to Portal:Visual arts (my recommendation) or to mainpage Portal:Arts.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I only recently took notice of this portal, I've never given portals much attention. If it's of use then I'm potentially interested in maintaining it, as I work on a lot of photography topics. I'm going to have a think about it before this discussion ends. {{Ping|Hoary}} may have a valuable opinion on this too. -Lopifalko (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

::@Lopifalko I have no doubt you mean well, but please listen to reason. In the last seven months, about 1,000 similarly long abandoned low-view portals have been deleted and roughly 500 portals remain. This portal has been largely abandoned for over ten years and completely abandoned for five. As described in my delete vote below, the viewership for this portal has halved in the last four years, which is very common for portals, which as a whole are dying and even their defenders cannot articulate what they are even for. Portals do not have their own content, so nothing is lost if this long-abandoned portal is deleted. The B-Class head article Photography had 1,724 views [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-07-01&end=2019-09-30&pages=Photography per day] in the first half of 2019, so any effort improving Wikipedia's coverage of photography would be much better spent there then on a rotted portal readers don't use. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

:::{{re|Lopifalko}} If you do want to maintain this portal, please let me know if you have any questions. The new portal format at Portal:Canada is a good starting point. SportingFlyer T·C 12:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Long abandoned error filled portal on a single art-form, has no maintainers, and significantly declining viewership. The portal had 55 views [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-07-01&end=2019-09-30&pages=Portal:Photography per day] in the 3rd quarter of 2019, which is a steady long-term decline from the 109 views [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2015-07-01&end=2015-09-30&pages=Portal:Photography per day] in the 3rd quarter of 2015, the earliest data available. The B-Class head article Photography, with a very rich and versatile navbox and a smaller navbox, is all readers need to explore this topic. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect - Redirect to Portal:Visual arts. It not very clear to me the function of art-related subportals. There are "by gender" and "by type" subportals that do not follow a cohesive standard. I think important in this particular case, to preserve the history and talkpage, redirect to Portal: Visual arts for future return to this discussion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep has an associated WikiProject, which I have proposed to be the guideline for determining whether a topic can have a portal. SportingFlyer T·C 12:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. , and let the WikiProject fix the errors. Portals associated with ative projects should be kept--even though a reminder may be neededto keeep them properly maintained. Tryingto remove portals where there are a few errors is likedeleting articles because they're not FA. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep and encourage the associated WikiProject to take on a more active role in maintaining the portal. Lepricavark (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment @SportingFlyer @DGG @Lepricavark Your votes based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography taking over this portal and making it into something great are not credible or based in fact. The reality is this portal was last mentioned (excluding a notice of this MfD) on the project's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Photography/Archive_2 talk page] at 00:54, 10 December 2007, in passing no less. As history has shown, they have no interest whatsoever in this portal (and please see WP:NOTCOMPULSORY), so your pipe-dream votes should hold no weight. Aside from a very small single sub-page updated in 2016, this portal has been abandoned for over a decade - the community has already spoken on what they think this portal is worth (nothing), you just failed to listen. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

::{{U|Newshunter}}, there is no deadline at WP. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

:::Also notice I didn't suggest the WikiProject support the portal with my initial vote. I'm looking only at whether the topic is large enough to have a portal on, which it clearly is. It shouldn't take much work at all to clean up. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

::{{yo|Newshunter12}} you have failed to accurately represent what I actually wrote and I will not waste time arguing against a strawman. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I think it's mighty presumptuous to rope that WikiProject into this without consulting them. I'm not sure who would even speak for that group when there are apparently [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Photography very few active contributors]. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have a bot (BHGbot 4) which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries.

:In this case I think that the appropriate new links would be to Portal:Visual arts. Alternative suggestions welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - No policy based rationale for deletion given. GMG^talk 19:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

: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.