Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Battleships

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. ✗ plicit  14:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Portal:Battleships

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

With all the quality battleship content from milhist, this had the potential to be one of the better portals. Instead it is another typical poorly maintained portal utilizing static copies of ledes that haven't been updated since 2010.

Portal:Battleships/Selected article: only 12 entries. SMS Radetzky links to a disambiguation page. 12 is supposed to link to List of unprotected cruisers of Germany but doesn't link to anything.

Portal:Battleships/Selected picture clips outside the bounds of the portal on my screen.

Portal:Battleships/Selected biography: some GAs+, five Bs, 7 Cs and 3 start class articles. Robley D. Evans is a disambiguation page. Fred Moosally: Despite maintenance issues with the guns and low morale in the turret crews, he authorized experimentation with the main batteries, erroneously belieiving them to be authorized by Naval Sea Systems Command. There are issues with a typo and POV language in this sentence. Though critical of his crew, Moosally refused to support the erroneous official finding that GM2 Clayton Hartwig had deliberately caused it, an act that effectively ended his career. More POV language.

Portal:Battleships/Quality content is completely out of date unless Majestic Titan has not been consistently churning out quality articles for the last decade. Schierbecker (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - This portal had 64 daily pageviews in 2023, which is somewhat more than the average, which was about 20 in 2019. By contrast, the main article had 1442 daily pageviews.  This portal, like the other portals nominated at this time, has an architecture which was always unsound, in which the selected articles were actually partial copies of the articles and so were content forks, and would become out of sync with the articles.  In this respect, this portal architecture is unlike its subject, because battleships only became obsolete during World War Two with the introduction of aircraft carriers.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment IMO, with more modern search methods, portals are not very useful, and tend to be not maintained.  This one appears to be an example of that. IMO, have the material in articles, and Wikipedia's search bar will take care of people interested in the field. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - This portal has an unsound architecture. Since some portals for which re-architecting was recommended in 2019 have not been improved, there is no reason to expect this one to be improved.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Question for User:North8000 - Did you forget to !vote, or are you not !voting at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - Portals are a way to have your navigation path selected by the portal maintainer, or the would-be portal maintainer. A better way to navigate is by links from the main article, since main articles should be adequately linked.  Categories are also a method of navigation if they are properly maintained, and in Wikipedia the categories are maintained by gnomes.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Per my comment above. I worded it as "weak" because if somebody wants to really work on the portal and update it and keep it up to date, I would defer to their opinion. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. This can be fixed through automation so it does not need to be updated frequently. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no reason why this portal can't be automated as was done to Portal:Video Games (see: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Video games). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete and direct users to the article on battleships. It doesn't get enough views nor is it useful enough to warrant keeping even if it was edited to update without manual editor input. (The views the portal does get are only because we link to it from a large number of articles. I assume the clickthrough percentage is quite low, and there's an argument that most of the links violate the spirit of WP:SEEALSO and WP:NAVBOX.)) Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:P Narrow topic, could be kept if it's about Warships, Ships or Naval warfare.Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.