Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Professional wrestling

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) 05:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Professional wrestling

Neglected portal.

Selected article/1 created in January 2008 was updated for the first and last time in June 2013. Entry had live vandalism for 19 days and 17 days.
Selected article/2 was created in January 2008 and last updated in June 2013.
Selected article/3 was created in January 2008. It was last updated in June 2013.
Selected article/4 Created in January 2008. Last updated in June 2013. Entry had live vandalism for five days, ten days and three days.
Selected article/5 was created in January 2008 and updated for the first and last time in June 2013.
Selected article/6 was created in October 2008 and never updated.
Selected article/7 was created in November 2008 and never updated.
Selected article/8 was created in January 2009 and never updated.
Selected article/9, Selected article/10 and Selected article/11 were created in April 2010 and never updated
Selected article/12 was created in June 2013 and never updated.

Professional wrestling/News is over 20kB and constantly updated by User:Fishhead2100, but all the news items are completely uncited. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With over 1000 edits per year, the news subpage has been at times more active than the entire German Wikinews. The English Wikinews may be alerted in case they want to import some content, but at this time the portal appears to act as an abusive pseudo-Wikinews inside Wikipedia, with lower standards on sources than both Wikipedia and Wikinews have. Nemo 09:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there was a fan-site portal in Wikipedia I thought would work, it would be Professional Wrestling. Having gone through it, it makes me realise that portals, outside of a smaller group, have little future in Wikipedia. Not only is the portal now abandoned (aside from being abused as a personalized unsourced newsfeed), but the Main article is also heavily tagged with no sign of improvement. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling seem to want nothing to do with this portal, and are a much better source for the directory of articles on the topic. The portal has been effectively replaced by the Navbox and WP Professional Wrestling project site, and is now maintained by almost no-one, and read by almost no-one. Britishfinance (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a well-viewed if unmaintained portal. It has had an average of 123 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, as opposed to 2298 for the article. It would be helpful if the nominator, User:Mark Schierbecker, provided a clearer definition of what they mean by "never updated" with respect to articles. Most of the articles that are said to have been never updated have had edits to disambiguate links, to change the resolution of images, or for other cosmetic purposes. The existence of vandalism that was uncorrected for weeks illustrates an inherent drawback of content-forked subpages, that the subpages are easy targets for vandalism. (If an article is transcluded, vandalism is against the article, which is commonly watch-listed, and is seen more frequently). This portal has 147 DYKs, which is even more than other portals that have too many DYKs. Large numbers of DYKs in a portal are almost always simply a device to support a general trivia section. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not updating the selected articles should not be a reason for deletion. This topic has over 300 potential FA/GA articles to showcase and does receive a number of edits. SportingFlyer T·C 11:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A portal is not an article, and abandoned portal is a reason for its deletion (like if the Mainpage was abandoned for years). In addition, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling is an active project (and who ignore the portal), and are a much better structured and unbiased catalogue of the topic articles. Britishfinance (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Where is the guideline that says that lack of maintenance is not a reason to delete? There is an essay to that effect about articles. Portals are not articles. There are no portal guidelines.
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 selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (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 maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies). Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable. Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
Common sense is that we should not be showcasing information that we know is obsolete because it has been updated in the articles.
This is a well-viewed portal. If someone is willing to maintain it, then it can be maintained. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, because the portal is in very poor shape and needs WP:TNT, but does have high pageviews. TNT is needed because it has a flawed design based on forks rather than transclusion, because the DYKs have turned into trivia, and because the personal pet uncited newsfeed is inappropriate. If all these problems were fixed, I would change to a Keep. However, I suggest spending effort on improving the head article instead.
The community's consensus not to delete all portals is not a consensus to keep all portals. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve old and 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) 05:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The portal has high pageviews, but nobody is interested in maintaining it. The recent (i.e. September 2019) discussion at WT:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 106#Portal:Professional_wrestling makes it very clear that the project doesn't see value in the portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 26 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.