Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Microsoft (2nd nomination)

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) 04:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Microsoft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neglected portal. Eighteen selected articles. One selected bio.

Bill Gates bio was created in March 2013 and never updated. He has not been the wealthiest person since 2017. Has not been Chairman of the Board since 2014. His net worth on that copy is claimed as $82 billion dollars. As of 2018 he was worth $95.4 billion. Entry claims his family wealth is only behind the Walton family. List of wealthiest families does not list Gates, but if it did, he would probably be two rungs lower than is claimed.

Windows 8 B-class article created in August 2012 and never updated. If it had been, the entry would say something about the failure of Windows 8 in the marketplace and the subsequent the release of Windows 8.1 to fix its serious flaws.

Microsoft Office features prominently some 2009 statistics adoption of Office 2007.

Windows Phone C-class article. Discontinued, and last release was in 2015, which is not reflected in the entry.

Internet Explorer me B-class article says nothing about its successor Microsoft Edge. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over five years, save for some one off updates by passing editors. Since 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 Wiki fanatic, who last updated it in May 2007 and left Wikipedia in 2008. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This decrepit portal has had over five years of no steady maintainers and it had a low 74 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Microsoft had 6,870 views per day in the same period).

• POG also requires portals be associated with a Wikiproject, but the last editor interaction at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft was a 2017 revert of IP vandalism and this portal has never been mentioned on the projects talk page (excluding an outside editor notifying them of this MfD). The project has also been deleted twice before due to a complete lack of members, and its "Current Coordinator" left Wikipedia in 2016 and its "Assistant coordinator" left Wikipedia in 2015. 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 five years of hard evidence shows Microsoft is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Individual companies are not broad enough topics to warrant a portal. Portals about specific companies rather look like advertisement boards. SD0001 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001 I agree, but I assume you meant to write "Individual companies are not broad enough topics." Newshunter12 (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yup, corrected. Thanks! SD0001 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – On the one hand, I disagree with the statement by User:Newshunter12 that 74 daily pageviews is low. It is good for a portal. This is a well-viewed, poorly maintained portal. The lack of maintenance, including the user-facing errors noted by User:Mark Schierbecker, are a concern. Another concern with portals on single commercial companies is that they are likely to be affected by conflict of interest and in non-neutral point of view. As User:SD0001 says, portals on companies resemble advertising boards. This isn't a breadth of topic issue; this is a neutral point of view issue. (The portal guidelines are contested. Neutral point of view is the second pillar.) It is hard enough to maintain neutrality in article space, but Wikipedia has to do that. It isn't necessary to have commercial portals. The combination of inadequate maintenance, resulting in errors facing the user, and an inherent neutrality problem, are reasons to delete this portal (without reconstruction). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The portal looks magnificent but there is a time when one must consider whether a high-maintenance asset is more trouble than worth. My colleagues here have been very thorough about recounting the points of disposing of this asset. flowing dreams (talk page) 06:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and per NH12. Clear fail of WP:POG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 6 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.