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: no consensus. There doesn't seem to be a strong consensus either way at this time. Some editors have started fixing the perceived issues with this portal, which is helpful, but if that maintenance doesn't persist beyond this MfD, then this portal might end up back here with a different result. ‑Scottywong| [gossip] || 03:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Olympic Games[edit]

Portal:Olympic Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal. Fifteen selected articles and 10 selected athletes. The last time any of these was updated was in 2012. The Olympics is a very large topic and the selected entries do not represent this area well.

Selected articles:

Selected athletes:

Notable errors:

Did you actually click and look the portal itself or you are writing similar reasons to delete on every portal nomination? The portal itself looks good and not abandoned at all. It even includes up to date news (missing on most portals). Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pelmeen10 If this portal is not abandoned, than why was Barbara Ann Scott's 2012 death never noted in her biography article on this portal? This portal is near-decade long abandoned junk, not the incredible masterpiece you are making it out to be. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your sports themed user page, sports heavy edit history and guideline averse vote, all I see is WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1000-1500 monthly views are very good, much more than the "deadline of 100" mentioned here, so it definitely is broad subject enough to attract readers. Not to mention, based on your edit history, you don't seem to like portals at all. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pelmeen10 Not true. Firstly, that is an essay not a policy or guideline, so it means nothing. Secondly, portal views at MfD are counted on a per day basis, not monthly, which is dishonest because it's easy to mislead others into thinking those are the daily stats. You are also wildly inflating the monthly stat. This portal from Jan-Jun 2019 had 938 views per month, not 1000-1500. During the same period, the head article Olympic Games, which is also a Featured Article, had over 140,000 views per month, so what good is this seven year abandoned portal actually doing besides misleading readers? Fourthly, subjective broadness like you are applying means nothing here. This portal clearly fails WP:POG's broadness guidelines because it lacks large numbers of readers and has no maintainers all for many years. And no, I do not like abandoned junk portals that mislead readers. Do you? Newshunter12 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should look stats for longer period (including actual Olympics time) if you claim it's abandoned for 7 years. Comparison to the main article is totally irrelevant. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pelmeen10 you mentioned mentioned Wikipedia:Consultation on the future of portals, an abandoned discussion where one editor had proposed a target of 100 views per month. That amounts to only 3 views per day, which is risibly low. Hundreds of portals with many times that view have been abandoned and deleted. The actual threshold at which portals start to become viable is about 100 views per day.
Comparison to the main article is highly relevant. A moderately well-built head article on any topic provides most of the features which a portal sets out to provide: navigation to key topics, preview of articles (it's built-in for non-logged-in readers), and (also for for non-logged-in readers) a built-in image gallery which is vastly better than that in any portal. So unless the portal is demonstrably serving a need which is not met by the head article, it's a waste of time for everyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon Thanks for the tip on page views. I obviously forgot to use both names when researching the page views stat and have updated my post. As to the below question you posed, based on their edit history elsewhere, they are passionate about sports and their vote is just WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When a nominator brings out these mistakes, it's easy to fix them. I mean, when you see a article with these kind of mistakes (or one with not 100% up to date info), you would not think to nominate it for deletion. Plus, not every part of a portal needs to be updated very often. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hecato pelmeen10's vote and your vote are both pure WP:ILIKEIT, not policy based, nor do they even try to link to supportive policies because there are none. We don't keep anything on Wikipedia based on WP:CRYSTALBALL. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, and this one falls flat. One off maintenance means nothing. This junk portal has been abandoned for seven years and telling readers wildly inaccurate information as explained by the nom. It also has low page views. WP:POG requires portals be about: "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." No guess work is needed. Seven years of hard data show readers and maintainers don't want this portal, which should be deleted per WP:POG. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Newshunter12 - I didn't ask you how and by whom does User:Pelmeen10 propose that the portal be fixed. ·It also appears that some editors are passionate about portals. I can understand being passionate about sports. I don't understand being passionate about portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
are likely to attract is funny wording, but for the biggest sporting event/movement in to world, it's more likely than in any other sports portal. One minus is that portals are not presented enough to get those "big clicks". Having small icons in the bottom of the article won't do it any favours. But, it still changes when Olympics come closer. I also understand the passion for creating Wikipedia content, but I don't understand the passion to delete. The time for portals in not over, yet. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pelmeen10 Portals are not content. Articles have content, while a portals only value is its utility. Subjective grandiosity about this topic means nothing here. Given that this portal is abandoned crud, I certainly hope it's not still around by the time of the next Olympics to lure readers away from the Featured Article Olympic Games. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Catfurball This portal has been abandoned for seven years and had 31 views per day over a six month period, while the Featured Article Olympic Games had 4769 views per day. This junk portal has only 0.65% of the daily views of the head article, which is among the best content on Wikipedia, while the portal is decrepit. There is no obligation to have a portal on anything, and this one clearly fails WP:POG and only serves to lure readers away from the best content on Wikipedia to pure crud. Please reconsider your vote. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1000+ page views a month when the next or last Olympic Games are far away means this is one of the most popular portals and the subject itself is notable in every part of the world. May I ask what kind of a policy is the comparison to page views on the main article? Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pelmeen10 Stop saying things that are untrue. This portal has fewer then 1000 views a month over the long term of 2019 and that is itself a misleading statistic. Views are given in days at MfD. There are also hundreds of portals with higher page views than this one. Do you have a reliable source stating the Olympics is notable in every part of the world and furthermore, what does that have to do with WP:POG's broadness guidelines and this portal's abject failure of them? Newshunter12 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has attracted only a mediocre numbers of readers, and almost no maintainers.
I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A selection of topics which is a decade out-of-date
  2. No agreed basis for selecting new topics
  3. No identified maintainers (see the portal page: none signed up)
  4. No buy-in from WikiProject Olympics, where there is precisely zero discussion at WT:WikiProject Olympics of whether they want to support and maintain this portal.
So all we actually have so far is a few drive by edits from portal fans who appear to have no track record of involvement with Olympic topics. That's a recipe for either a) ongoing decay after the driveby fixes, or b) the portal lingering on as a technically maintained but editorially vacuous plaything of portal fans. Our readers deserve much better than being lured to a so-called "portal" in either of those two states. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: I am just noting changes to the current maintenance status so people new to the discussion can keep track and make informed decisions. Thanks for the to-do-list I guess. I do not remember if I told you this before, but it would be great if you could compress your thoughts a bit more, your posts always take up a lot of space. And not that I care much about it, but the statement that I have not been involved with Olympic Games related articles is false. --Hecato (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hecato - Stating that the above post by User:BrownHairedGirl should have been compressed more was stupid. Apparently you only want comments on the nature of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you can't read a concise post by BHG, then perhaps you should avoid taking part in MFDs. It is true that some of her posts are longer, but that is because, unlike yours, they contain information. If you can't say anything useful, you have the right to say nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 lines is not bulky.
You misunderstand my post. That's not a personal to-do list for anyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can also count me in as a "maintainer" (my kind of topic anyway). But can't see the things BrownHairedGirl insisted under actual guidelines. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:06, 27 August 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.


More