Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Commonwealth Games (2nd nomination)

 __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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Commonwealth Games

 * – (View MfD)

One never-updated selected article and two never-updated selected athletes created in May 2011. Six never-updated selected games: one in May 2011, four in May 2017, one in June 2018 (this one failed to be transcluded). The later five were created by blocked sockpuppets. Previous MfD in 2007 closed as "Keep (No Consensus)".

Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Errors
 * Ian Thorpe re-retired in 2012
 * Vijender Singh metaled silver in 2014. He turned to professional boxing in 2015. He only earned three CG medals, so why is his bio listed here?
 * Delete. Scope is too narrow to support a freestanding portal. bd2412  T 11:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. To narrow a topic, adds little over the main article+navbox, and is out-of-date and largely abandoned. Britishfinance (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks?  I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Sports), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too narrow a scope for its own portal.  The portal has never had anywhere near enough articles to add sufficient value for readers to justify luring them to the portal rather than to the head article.  It also suffers from a long-term lack of maintenance.
 * There is no WP:WikiProject Commonwealth Games to assess possible articles for the portal, or to serve as a possible recruiting round for maintainers.
 * Talk:Commonwealth_Games also shows no mention of the portal, and Portal talk:Commonwealth Games also has no discussion. The only post there ever is a mass-message by TTH. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Too narrow a scope for a portal. Any GA/FA articles can possibly be merged to Portal:Athletics. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, like an article is, since they are for navigation instead. It is therefore improper to use rationales meant for keeping articles to argue that this failed navigation device should be kept. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised or done at the last minute just to stave off deletion. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. 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 potentially inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. I support replacement of links rather than redirection, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The following table includes metrics for this portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games

 * '''Delete as per nominator and in view of above metrics.
 * 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.
 * Low readership, not very many articles, no recent maintenance. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2019 (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.