Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Missouri

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. Killiondude (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neglected portal. Main maintainer User:Fetchcomms hasn't edited in three years.

Ten selected articles created and/or last updated in August 2010. Two never-updated articles created in December 2010. Eight never-updated articles created February - November 2011. Three never-updated articles created in July 2012.

Twenty-five bios that fit the same pattern as the selected articles.

Errors

• David Freese has played for three different teams since leaving the St. Louis Cardinals in 2013.
• Chuck Berry died in 2017.
• Brad Pitt is missing several film acting and producing credits including Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and 12 Years a Slave
• Stan Musial died in January 2013
• Ozzie Smith was inducted into the St. Louis Cardinals Hall of Fame in 2014.
• Randy Orton performs on the WWE Smackdown brand. There are also many, many missing titles and acting credits.
• Jon Hamm is missing many acting credits.
• Maya Angelou died in May 2014
• Eminem has released three albums (one RIAA 4× Platinum, one Platinum, and one Gold) since his entry was last updated Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we don't need this state portal period.Catfurball (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:Mark Schierbecker - User:Grey Wanderer is the originator and listed maintainer, not User:Fetchcomms. And Twinkle did notify User:Grey Wanderer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - All of these discrepancies, including WP:BLPs of dead poets and rock stars and athletes, illustrate the unsoundness of using content-forked subpages. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 10 October 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:United States), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Yet another farm of long-outdated content forks, actively misleading the few readers lured here from much better-maintained article. No sign of the multiple maintainers needed to sustain a portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, being for navigation instead, so it is improper to try to compare dilapidated and useless portals to articles and say they should just be fixed. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised at the last minute just to stave off deletion. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve potentially inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. I support replacement or removal of links rather than redirection, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Do other states have portals like this? If other states have similar projects portals, I would be hesitant to say delete simply because a future editor(s) might make use of this page and starting from scratch is much harder.HornColumbia talk 02:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Effectively abandoned since its creator stopped in 2011, and now error-prone. Adds nothing over main article+navboxes. Even the main article has been tagged for issues for a few years now (nobody wants to address them). We may "hope" that the required group of editors will come who want to sustain a Missouri portal, but that has not happened for almost a decade now (and will similar issues growing on the main article). Britishfinance (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Multiple discrepancies listed above show the unsoundness of using content-forked subpages. This portal had 18 average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019.
• The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense. It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers. (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.) Common sense imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense: (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintainers, at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained. Any portal that does not pass this common-sense test is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
• Low readership, no maintenance on articles as of 15Oct19. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Keeping a portal to facilitate restarting it is a bad idea when the problem with the portal is that the design is seriously flawed, such as relying on content-forked subpages that rot. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I get that, and I can agree with that statement, I just cringe at deleting other editor's content. Nothing drives away other potential editors like seeing their hard work burned at the stake. In this case the content is old and, looking at portals from other states, it looks like this content path has been abandonded in other states as well. I guess I can lean delete.HornColumbia talk 03:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @HornColumbia: a portal is not content; it is a navigational device, and also a showcase. Deleting the portal will remove zero content, or rather should remove zero content, because portals are unreferenced so should contain no original content. If the portal does contain original content, then it should be removed even if the portal is kept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I understand what a portal is. I was using 'content' in a generic way, meaning edits or work. A portal requires work to build and maintain. This one has lacked that maintenance for a while.HornColumbia talk 01:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is saddening to have out-of-date stuff on WP. If needed, an admin can restore this to anyone who wants to bring it up to date, but, frankly, an editor's time would be better spent on writing new and improved WP:Articles instead. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:30, 20 October 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.