Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Golf

 __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. Consensus clearly favors deletion of this portal, as do the arguments highlighting lack of development, viewership, and participation in the portal. bd2412 T 02:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Golf


Undeveloped portal with one selected article, one selected bio and one selected picture. Dozens of the subpages were just duplicates of each other. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – No prejudice against re-creation of a curated, complete portal. North America1000 03:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, with strong prejudice against re-creation.
 * WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". In this case, we don't need to make estimates of likelihood, because we have clear evidence that over the 13 years since its creation in June 2006, this portal has attracted no maintainers and almost no readers.
 * An abandoned portal such as this is significantly worse than no portal, because it misleads readers and wastes their time. The existence of a portal promises a gateway to more topics, but instead the poor reader lured to this abandoned junk will find a wasteland.
 * The B-class head article Golf is a vastly better navigational hub than the portal; and because the head article is written in summary style, it is also and a vastly better showcase. As with most portals, this one is a failed solution in search of a problem. So don't re-create it. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete:
 * The portal has 15 daily pageviews (in Jan-Jun 19). The head article has 1749 daily pageviews.
 * I disagree with the statement that there is only one article. There appear to be three.  It doesn't matter.  It is an undeveloped portal.  I concur with the comment that there is duplication among the subpages.
 * This portal has not been assessed since the portal assessment template and system was established in June 2018 (as many portals have not been). If the advocates of portals can't even  complete the job of assessing portals, how can the community expect that new and better portals will replace abandoned portals?
 * This portal should be deleted with prejudice against re-creation with a portal that uses subpages, which are a failed experiment. If a designer wants to create a portal using a better architecture, they know where Deletion Review is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a popular sport with many articles in its scope and many potential viewers given the pageviews on golf related articles. Clearly meets the Portal guideline demand for a broad subject area. The correct line of correction for content that requires improvement is not deletion. --Hecato (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hecato's comment is sadly typical of the responses by portalistas, in that it either misrepresents or ignores a guideline which has been quoted at them many dozens pf times, and is quoted in the discussion.
 * As Hecato well knows by now, WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Hecato simply asserts that the portal has "potential" ... but the actual text is much stronger than mere potential, it is "likelihood". Hecato simply ignores the evidence of a decade's neglect by both readers and maintainers, so their assertions about this meeting portal guidelines are at best magical thinking, and at worst a downright lie. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is improved and well linked, then I think it has a high likelihood of attracting readers and maintainers. So I maintain my Keep above. Just because something has not been improved for a long time, does not mean it will never be improved. There is no deadline. Also please stop labeling me with derogatory terms you have invented for people who disagree with you. --Hecato (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hecato, I will to continue to apply WP:SPADE when critiquing the disruptive deceptions of portalistas.
 * You are at it again, engaging in deception games by creating a straw man. You wrote: Just because something has not been improved for a long time, does not mean it will never be improved.  That's a classic straw man, because nobody is arguing that it will "never" be improved.  The test here is "likely" to be improved.
 * Straw man arguments are a classic technique of deceptive, disruptive, dishonest people who don't like honest debate. If you find those terms derogatory, then you can avoid their usage  by desisting from using that sort of dishonest argument.
 * In this case, everything you say is predicated on a hypothesis: If it is improved and well linked. This is fantasy reasoning, because no evidence has been offered that it is likely to be improved and well-linked. On the contrary, we have evidence of 13 years of these things not being done. So the "if" which posit you is highly unlikely ... and per POG, that's enough reason to delete. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Editors seem willing to make improvements for this portal, things such as expansion has already been done for other portals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the comment above by Knowledgekid87 is a blatant lie: i.e. it is a statement which is demonstrably untrue, was known by Knowledgekid87 to be untrue, and made with the intent of deception.
 * At the time when Knowledgekid87 wrote that, no editor had made a significant edit to this portal for ages. No editor had posted to volunteer their services to this portal.
 * It is truly astonishing to see how many of those who wish retain abandoned and unused portals resort so rapidly to outright lies. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its amazing how you call everyone who disagrees with you for whatever reason a "liar", this amounts to WP:BLUDGEON as you are beating the same point across. Anyways no I made no such lie hence the word "willing". It is also not a lie that other projects up for deletion have since been expanded with a result of "no consensus". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Knowledgekid87, I apply the label "liar" only to those like you who tell lies. Honest disagreements are a different matter.
 * You wrote Editors seem willing to make improvements for this portal, and you now acknowledge that you had no evidence to support that assertion. You now claim that some other portals have been expanded.  Even if that is true, it is not evidence that editors are willing to expand this portal.
 * However, I see now that is possible that you might not actually have told a lie, because if you don't comprehend the difference between an editor improving some other portal(s) and multiple editors improving this portal, then you simply wouldn't understand how you statement was false. If your comprehension was that poor, it would make your comment an unintentional untruth rather than a deliberate untruth.
 * However, the fact remain that regardless of whether you are confused or mendacious, your keep vote is based on an untrue statement. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note - Fixed the broken/empty news box with Wikinews Category:Golf inclusion. Replaced selected categories with CategoryTree and changed the color scheme. --Hecato (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Basically unchanged for years. No indication that any of the regular WP:GOLF editors is going to take on the effort of maintaining it. As such I see absolutely no purpose at all in keeping it. Nigej (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:14, 3 August 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.