Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Soccer in the United States

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) 04:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Soccer in the United States

Portal:Soccer in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unmaintained portal. Bios claim

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 09:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator as abandoned. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Soccer in the United States, but it's deceptive: most of the selected article and selected biog pages are blank. The last content added was Portal:Soccer in the United States/Selected article/9 in October 2009‎, nearly ten years ago.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers for a decade, and it also doesn't pull in readers: in Jan–Feb 2019, it got only 18 pageviews per day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

One common method for the design of portals, in use at least since 2005, has involved sometimes large numbers of subpages of the portal, one for each selected article and picture, and sometimes for news items and Do You Know (DYK) items. Often the subpages for selected articles consist of a copy of the original article, or a copy of the first part of the original article. The subpages for In The News (ITN) and DYK items may also be copies of the lead paragraph or a portion of the article page. This approach to design of portals is sufficiently commonly used that it can be considered standard. However, it is an honorable experiment that has failed, and should be abandoned. In numerous cases, it has been found that portals have displayed outdated and incorrect information to the reader. These discrepancies have been especially common with, but not limited to, political leadership. These discrepancies are a serious problem because they cannot be readily corrected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, meaning that any reasonably computer-literate person can edit an article; but editing the displayed information in a portal requires specialized technical knowledge of how portals are implemented, which is presumably why errors persist, sometimes for years. An editor who has Twinkle installed can tag articles in need of editing if they do not have the time or knowledge to fix them; but tagging via Twinkle is not available for portals. Experience has shown that the use of portal subpages that copy portions of articles results in outdated information being displayed, sometimes for years, because it is difficult to correct. This design technique, partial article copies, has been an honorable experiment over the course of more than a decade, but the experiment should be assessed to have been a failure. It has also been noted that copying portions of articles to portal subpages without attribution is a violation of the CC-BY-SA copyleft and is not permitted. Some other design approach for portals should be used in the future. The portal should be deleted without prejudice to a future portal that does not use partial page copies of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous Football Portal Metrics

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.