776:) are appealing primarily to the same arguments used at the RfC to delete all portals (that portals are dying etc). I will never understand why those who feel very strongly that portals ought to be retired have to be so unnecessarily hostile and aggressive about it (accusing those who wish not to delete them of believing they "apparently have some mystical value" - really?). The proposal to delete all portals failed spectacularly years ago; arguments along the lines of "portals are useless" aren't enough to delete any specific portal.
835:
kind of maintenance can only be done (or requested to be done) by tennis editors, so if none are interested then the portal cannot remain up-to-date and should be deleted. The RFCs, which were for the binary deletion of all portals at once, have no impact on specific portal deletion discussions and the validity of arguments made therein. If there are no specific deletion criteria for portals, then "IDONTLIKEIT", "portals are useless" etc. are arguments as valid as any, though they're not ones I've put forth here.
805:- that's not how it works. I've participated in my share of portal MfDs over the years, and if a portal's only issue is that it was outdated (rather than fundamentally broken, unfinished, etc), then one person going in and fixing it up is enough to make it perfectly fine and no longer worthy of deleting. You can't go from saying "it's outdated" to saying "well, the
724:
redirects" i.e. not portals. You haven't answered the question about what clear benefit this portal provides that outweighs the cost of it being so unmaintained by knowledgeable tennis editors that it has sat displaying misinformation for 5+ years, something completely antithetical to
Knowledge's purpose as an accurate compendium of knowledge.
420:
899:–Pageview counts have never been a reason for deleting Knowledge pages. And the number of views is not zero which means somebody might be taking an advantage from the existence of such a page. If something is not updating for a considerable time, the only option we have is not deleting whole page. User
637:. The standard arguments being "portal topic is too narrow, that there are only a few page views, and that in its current form the portal is selective in a non-NPOV way" versus "broad enough to justify a portal, that the portal can be fixed and that the deletion arguments are not grounded in policy". -
723:
It's an essay that "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" which explicitly says "just because an argument appears in this list does not necessarily mean it is always invalid" and that it is "tailored to deletion discussion, be that of articles, templates, images, categories, stub types, or
319:
But redirects are cheap. They give an added bonus that if someone does want to take on the updating it can be done in the same style and not from scratch. And yes it archives which is important. It seems like a no brainer to me that we would redirect the page unless someone wants to do the work right
751:
per Robert McClenon. Those claiming that portals are "useful" have not provided sufficient evidence, whereas the <20 pageviews a day are more than sufficient evidence that the portal is not benefiting anyone as a navigational tool. The argument that "you wouldn't delete an article that has barely
427:
a useful navigation tool. "Significantly updated", perhaps, but evidently not by an editor with a enough knowledge of the subject area to realize that a key section was completely out of date. This portal is obviously not wanted by the tennis-editing community, and that is reason enough to delete it
767:
Maintained portal. It wasn't even that out of date before nominating it for deletion. The personal attacks towards
Northamerica1000 here, and the framing that portals would be deleted if not for the one-person "portal rescue squad" only coming to save them when they're being nominated for deletion,
834:
say that actually because the removal of that section was only sparked by myself, a tennis editor, pointing out its outdatedness in this deletion discussion. If I hadn't done so then that completely false info would have remained proudly on display for who knows how long, and to what benefit? This
483:
The number of viewers who find it a useful navigational tool is less than 1% of the viewers who read the article. Portals have two limitations as a navigational tool. First, they only permit the viewer to view the pages that the portal maintainer has already selected, which is less flexible than
920:
Wiki "Project" is not interchangeable with a "Portal". One is supposed to cater for (wannabe) editors, not readers. This deletion proposal is then clearly made out of some geeky hostility (editor rather than reader hat on) towards portals: for editors it may appear like two places serving more or
862:
on that topic produced a consensus against deprecating portals, so it's fair to say that arguments that portals should all be deleted go against community consensus. Pageview counts are fundamentally not a reason for deleting something. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and if something is
651:
What benefit does an abandoned portal not curated or maintained by editors knowledgeable in the subject-area and not viewed by anyone bring? The years-outdated tournaments section demonstrates that such a portal can be a serious liability, so there should be a clear benefit for it to be worth
881:
My thanks to the nominator for pointing out an important error and to NA1K and others for fixing it and making other improvements. That just leaves the standard "delete because it is a typical portal" rationale. As Hut 8.5 points out, that proposition is better debated (and indeed has been
568:
above, this is the first time the portal has been nominated for deletion. The portal was not nominated for deletion when I improved it in May 2020. It is quite misleading to suggest otherwise. Also, I am not a member of any rescue project on
Knowledge. It is misleading to suggest otherwise.
241:. As such, your 400,000 figure makes little sense here without quantification of the rest of the articles. Also, portals are a supplemental means to navigate Knowledge. It's natural that the main article will receive more page views than its portal.
236:
Could you further quantify your assertion that the pages that link to the portal received a combined total of "400,000 page views"? Also, is your metric per month, daily, weekly, which one? As of this post, the Tennis article receives an average of
414:
The outdatedness of the tournaments section reflects the Tennis WikiProject's total disinterest in maintaining this portal; your removal of it doesn't change that. All the high-quality subject and biographical articles are already linked at
612:
177:
This lack of non-redundant scope cannot be fixed. Attempts to make it look useful are a waste of time, and for any reader they distract them from the mainspace article, and for any editor it distracts from the WikiProject.
925:
portal and instead was basically focused on what was wrong with portals in general. The appropriate action should have been to propose amendment of rules or elimination of
Portals in the appropriate Wiki portal :).
480:
In 2021, the portal had 18 average daily pageviews, and the article had 2034 average daily pageviews. In 2020, the portal had 16 average daily pageviews, and the article had 1776 average daily pageviews.
297:
I have suggested redirecting as a method of archive before, but no one interested in portals seems interested. I guess it’s not as if there is actual unique content in the portal, so it doesn’t matter.
863:
encyclopedic then it has a place in that encyclopedia, regardless of how many people read it. If the number of people reading
Knowledge dropped sharply we wouldn't go and delete a bunch of articles.
975:
Portals are rarely maintained, never actually used, and have slowly been deteriorating. Being removed from the Main Page was really the nail in the coffin on any chance of them recovering, I think.
261:
When you have an article that has been here and been used (by no matter how few) for 15 years you would never just delete it. Perhaps someone would want to fix it up better. I would redirect it to
126:
391:
The link count cited in the nomination are mostly from the portal template being on the
Wikiproject banner template on talk pages, but most readers to not read or navigate from talk pages.
859:
772:). I find it unconvincing that those who are quick to say "portals are not content, there are no deletion criteria for portals, they can be deleted per common sense" (really meaning per
858:
most of the arguments put forwards for deleting this are actually arguments against portals in general. That's not something which can be settled at the level of an individual MfD, and
238:
609:
516:
502:
912:
575:
981:
970:
944:
792:
759:
646:
623:
825:
930:
437:
409:
873:
329:
307:
247:
891:
844:
733:
718:
700:
686:
664:
803:
The outdatedness of the tournaments section reflects the Tennis WikiProject's total disinterest in maintaining this portal; your removal of it doesn't change that.
278:
292:
187:
709:
does apply here as portals are considered content on
Knowledge, and the lead of the essay specifically states "this page is tailored to deletion discussion". -
460:
172:
652:
keeping. Or is there no circumstance in which you'd not vote "keep" for a portal that passes your subjective "broad enough" threshold"? If so just say that.
350:
206:
224:
903:
has shown an example of what we can do above. Modifications to the structure of the portal is not something forbidden in
Knowledge as far as I know.
634:
555:
669:
Again... you are throwing out the same arguments. There is nobody stopping anyone from maintaining the portal until it meets standards so its a
523:
Deletion of a portal does not delete encyclopedic content. It only deletes a navigational tool to information that is normally navigated using
836:
725:
692:
656:
429:
138:
125:
section includes tournaments that became defunct 5+ years ago—so does a disservice to readers and reflects poorly on
Knowledge. Receives just
451:
The portal would benefit? Does
Knowledge exist to benefit portals? More links from articles would detract from the quality of articles.
146:
691:
What same arguments? I asked you specific questions. ATA is an essay tailored for content-deletion discussions. Portals are not content.
534:
Portals evidently have some mystical value. Some readers and editors either have no use for mysticism, or prefer organized religion.
215:
400,000 views on the pages it’s linked from and only 25 click through to the portal. How could anyone even think of keeping this?
72:
822:
789:
103:
122:
515:
maintains portals either randomly or when they are questions about whether to keep them, functioning as an unofficial
99:
17:
395:
586:
368:
91:
809:
wasn't keeping it up to date." We don't care who fixes it up, all that matters is that it's up to standards.
768:
are not acceptable. Deletion discussions very often result in rapid improvements being made, this is normal (
160:
908:
59:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.
921:
less one purpose. That's why no reason was presented that specifically alleges is something wrong with
752:
been touched in years" is not valid since an article serves a vastly different purpose than a portal.
655:
There is no specific policy for deleting a portal AFAIK, so arguments cannot be "grounded in policy".
1000:
566:"The portal is maintained occasionally, especially when there are questions about whether to keep it"
551:
40:
130:
816:
783:
714:
682:
642:
619:
593:
would be enough), lack of Wikiproject integration and unreferenced content, an example, the quote
673:
situation. Your reasoning of page views, maintenance and out of date info is actually covered in
537:
There are no guidelines for the keeping or deleting of portals, so that the main guideline is to
325:
274:
111:
904:
283:
Is there any reason to think that will happen? Portals are slowly dying, not being built anew.
996:
966:
900:
773:
571:
512:
507:
405:
243:
77:
36:
547:
528:
492:. Second, they are only used by viewers who know about and use portals in the first place.
489:
68:
995:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
423:
page views a day; of which 25 (0.00625%) click through to the portal, so in practice it's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
8:
976:
961:
955:
939:
811:
778:
710:
678:
638:
615:
456:
303:
183:
168:
614:, recently content portals are not being created and maintained by related Wikiprojects.
107:
606:
It's a problem a portal that was not created and maintained by the related Wikiproject?
321:
270:
95:
840:
729:
696:
670:
660:
433:
266:
142:
887:
416:
345:
287:
220:
202:
927:
524:
485:
134:
64:
585:– This portal, despite its above-average quality, fails in the usual questions,
769:
495:
There is no regular portal maintainer. The portal is maintained occasionally,
452:
314:
299:
179:
164:
706:
674:
597:
590:
538:
474:
86:
78:
374:
The portal contains links to high-quality subject and biographical articles.
866:
883:
342:
284:
231:
216:
198:
594:
56:- broader discussions about portal space should take place elsewhere.
938:
but mostly because I think Portals in general should all be deleted.
601:
384:, which would then increase the page views it receives. The portal
705:
As I said, your arguments about management and dated information.
448:
If it is useful for navigation, why isn’t it used for navigation?
394:
The portal was significantly updated in May 2020. See the page's
133:
pages including articles that get millions of views a year, e.g.
991:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
262:
156:
269:
until such time that someone would like to tackle an upgrade.
497:
especially when there are questions about whether to keep it
419:. The "only" 1,015 articles that link to the portal receive
677:
for deletion discussions. These are surmountable issues. -
445:
The mainspace page is where quality links are to be found.
633:
as I feel the arguments presented here are the same as
589:, unnecessary complexity, excess links, narrow topic (
442:
Easy updates not being done is a sign of its failure.
428:as they're needed to keep it properly up-to-date.
380:The portal would benefit from more links to it in
882:discussed repeatedly) at a namespace-wide level.
635:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Maryland
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1003:). No further edits should be made to this page.
388:has only 1,015 links to it in article namespace.
371:). This took a matter of seconds to accomplish.
367:I removed the outdated Tournaments section (
801:I do want to add in response to the nom's
587:which have already been widely discussed
604:. The question is... like this portal,
377:The portal is a useful navigation tool.
14:
129:views per day despite being linked on
596:, which does not exist either in the
964:of Knowledge should all be deleted?
510:. Northamerica1000 likes portals.
48:The result of the discussion was:
23:
24:
1015:
121:Unmaintained and out of date—the
18:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion
960:Why do you feel that an entire
13:
1:
161:Knowledge:WikiProject Tennis
155:: Redundant and inferior to
7:
10:
1020:
931:13:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
913:08:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
892:20:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
874:17:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
845:05:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
826:20:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
793:20:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
760:16:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
734:00:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
719:23:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
701:23:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
687:18:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
665:16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
647:16:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
624:23:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
576:15:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
556:14:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
461:08:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
438:14:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
410:13:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
351:04:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
330:18:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
308:04:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
293:04:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
279:03:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
225:08:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
207:14:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
188:08:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
173:14:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
147:12:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
993:Please do not modify it.
239:1,622 page views per day
32:Please do not modify it.
982:13:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
971:13:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
945:16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
248:13:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
197:Another useless portal
73:13:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
517:WP:Portal rescue squad
503:WP:Portal rescue squad
123:"Upcoming tournaments"
513:User:Northamerica1000
508:User:Northamerica1000
505:consisting largely of
398:for more information.
675:arguments to avoid
598:Biographed article
267:Outline of tennis
63:
60:non-admin closure
1011:
979:
969:
959:
942:
869:
757:
755:Ten Pound Hammer
574:
539:Use Common Sense
408:
396:Revision history
318:
246:
235:
116:
115:
57:
34:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1001:deletion review
977:
965:
953:
940:
867:
753:
570:
548:Robert McClenon
520:
506:
498:
404:
348:
347:it has begun...
312:
290:
289:it has begun...
242:
229:
135:Serena Williams
89:
85:
82:
52:. Consensus to
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1017:
1006:
1005:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
978:casualdejekyll
956:Casualdejekyll
948:
947:
941:casualdejekyll
933:
915:
894:
876:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
796:
795:
774:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
762:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
711:Knowledgekid87
679:Knowledgekid87
653:
639:Knowledgekid87
627:
626:
616:Guilherme Burn
579:
578:
545:
544:
543:
542:
535:
532:
521:
511:
500:
496:
493:
481:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
449:
446:
443:
401:
400:
399:
392:
389:
378:
375:
372:
362:
361:
354:
353:
346:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
295:
288:
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
210:
209:
192:
191:
190:
119:
118:
81:
76:
46:
45:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1016:
1004:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
983:
980:
974:
973:
972:
968:
967:North America
963:
957:
952:
951:
950:
949:
946:
943:
937:
934:
932:
929:
924:
919:
916:
914:
910:
906:
902:
901:North America
898:
895:
893:
889:
885:
880:
877:
875:
872:
871:
870:
861:
857:
854:
853:
846:
842:
838:
833:
829:
828:
827:
824:
821:
820:
819:
815:
814:
808:
804:
800:
799:
798:
797:
794:
791:
788:
787:
786:
782:
781:
775:
771:
766:
763:
761:
756:
750:
747:
735:
731:
727:
722:
721:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
703:
702:
698:
694:
690:
689:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
629:
628:
625:
621:
617:
613:
610:
607:
603:
599:
595:
592:
591:Portal:Sports
588:
584:
581:
580:
577:
573:
572:North America
567:
563:
560:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
540:
536:
533:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
509:
504:
494:
491:
487:
482:
479:
478:
476:
475:Portal:Tennis
473:
470:
469:
462:
458:
454:
450:
447:
444:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
426:
422:
418:
413:
412:
411:
407:
406:North America
402:
397:
393:
390:
387:
383:
379:
376:
373:
370:
366:
365:
364:
363:
359:
356:
355:
352:
349:
344:
340:
337:
331:
327:
323:
322:Fyunck(click)
316:
311:
310:
309:
305:
301:
296:
294:
291:
286:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
271:Fyunck(click)
268:
264:
260:
257:
256:
249:
245:
244:North America
240:
233:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
208:
204:
200:
196:
193:
189:
185:
181:
176:
175:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
151:
150:
149:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
88:
87:Portal:Tennis
84:
83:
80:
79:Portal:Tennis
75:
74:
70:
66:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
992:
990:
935:
922:
917:
896:
878:
865:
864:
855:
831:
817:
812:
810:
806:
802:
784:
779:
777:
764:
754:
748:
630:
605:
582:
565:
564:– regarding
561:
546:
471:
424:
385:
381:
357:
338:
258:
194:
152:
120:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
928:—Loginnigol
484:the use of
65:—Ganesha811
671:WP:SOFIXIT
608:Analyzing
529:categories
490:categories
343:* Pppery *
285:* Pppery *
997:talk page
962:namespace
602:Wikiquote
453:SmokeyJoe
417:WP:TENNIS
341:per nom.
315:SmokeyJoe
300:SmokeyJoe
180:SmokeyJoe
165:SmokeyJoe
37:talk page
999:or in a
813:Vanilla
780:Vanilla
583:Question
386:actually
382:articles
39:or in a
905:Randeer
868:Hut 8.5
837:Letcord
818:Wizard
807:project
785:Wizard
770:WP:UDAC
726:Letcord
693:Letcord
657:Letcord
562:Comment
430:Letcord
421:400,000
139:Letcord
100:history
936:Delete
884:Certes
860:an RfC
749:Delete
707:WP:ATA
600:or in
472:Delete
339:Delete
263:Tennis
232:SK2242
217:SK2242
199:SK2242
195:Delete
157:Tennis
153:Delete
525:links
499:, by
486:links
320:now.
131:55000
108:watch
104:links
16:<
923:this
918:Keep
909:talk
897:Keep
888:talk
879:Keep
856:Keep
841:talk
765:Keep
730:talk
715:talk
697:talk
683:talk
661:talk
643:talk
631:Keep
620:talk
611:and
552:talk
501:the
457:talk
434:talk
369:diff
358:Keep
326:talk
304:talk
275:talk
259:Keep
221:talk
203:talk
184:talk
169:talk
159:and
143:talk
112:logs
96:talk
92:edit
69:talk
54:keep
50:keep
832:can
758:•
527:or
488:or
425:not
265:or
163:.
911:)
890:)
843:)
830:I
823:đź’™
790:đź’™
732:)
717:)
699:)
685:)
663:)
645:)
622:)
554:)
477::
459:)
436:)
403:–
328:)
306:)
277:)
223:)
205:)
186:)
171:)
145:)
137:.
127:20
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
71:)
958::
954:@
907:(
886:(
839:(
728:(
713:(
695:(
681:(
659:(
641:(
618:(
550:(
541:.
531:.
519:.
455:(
432:(
360:–
324:(
317::
313:@
302:(
273:(
234::
230:@
219:(
201:(
182:(
167:(
141:(
117:​
114:)
90:(
67:(
62:)
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.