Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Google (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) 02:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Google

There are three problems with this portal:

Too few articles (15).
Too little maintenance of the articles.
As a single-company portal, entirely too prone to non-neutral point of view, either due to conflict of interest or fondness for the company or a dislike of the company.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Google shows 11 articles and 4 biographies, all forked in 2015. Of those 15, 3 had minor edits, 1 had an image changed, and 1 had vandalism reverted, and 10 have been untouched since 2015. The company has changed in four years, but you wouldn’t know it. There are also 19 pictures, and 9 Android pictures, which appear to duplicate some of the pictures. There are also DYKs. The selection of articles and pictures appears to be what I would expect in an annual report. The portal had 76 average daily pageviews in Jan-Jun 2019, as opposed to 24,555 daily pageviews for the article. This is a relatively well-viewed but unmaintained portal. Too few articles and too little maintenance are arguments relying on the portal guidelines (which are contested) or on common sense. Neutral point of view is not merely a questioned guideline. It is the second pillar of Wikipedia and is non-negotiable. Neutral articles are essential, but require effort to achieve neutrality. There is no need to waste effort trying to make non-neutral portals neutral when deletion is available. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, and including a maintenance plan (since lack of maintenance is a problem with most portals), can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Showcasing poor-quality articles like Nexus 9 and Picasa. The later was discontinued in 2016. The use of fake hamburger buttons is hostile user design, btw. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Robert McClenon and Mark S. 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 Wild mine, who last updated it in July 2010 and left Wikipedia in Nov. 2014. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers, as laid out above (the portal only has 0.3% of the daily views of the head article). POG also states portals should be associated with a WikiProject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Google is best described as dormant, with the last editor to editor conversation occurring in August 2015 and the only conversation ever on the talk page about the portal was a brief, semi-coherent one in Feb. 2010. I oppose re-creation as a decade of hard evidence shows Google is not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers, and a private company should not have an individual portal. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Internet), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robert McClenon and User:Newshunter12. Narrow topic (single company) + low readership + poor maintenance = clear fail of 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".

The dormant WikiProject also means that this portal fails the POG requirement that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete companies shouldn't have portals period.Catfurball (talk)

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.