Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Karate

 __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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Karate


Abandoned draft portal from 2013. Broad topic, but nothing here worth keeping.

This portal was created in November 2013‎ by, and basically abandoned thereafter. That's no criticism of the editor; WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so editors are entirely free to move on to other things ... but a decision needs to be made about the fate of this abandoned portal.

The list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Karate shows an into, one selected biog, one selected picture, one quote, one selected article, and that's it. Portal:Karate/Quote and Portal:Karate/Selected article are untouched since creation; the other have had only minor edits.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". However, this abandoned draft has no list of topics, and no rotation of selected articles pr photos. It is just a massively degraded version of the head article karate, which offers an excellent overview, great sampling of subtopics, and fine navigation through the navbox Template:Karate.

If the six years of neglect changes, and editors come forward to build a portal on karate (which will be an Olympic sport for the first time in 2020), then they will do much better to start from a blank sheet, unencumbered by this relic. Meanwhile, it is unfair on even the few readers who clock up 10 pageviews per day for the draft portal (vs 1,929 views/day for the head article) to continue to lure them to this abandoned page.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can be more than adequately covered by Portal:Martial arts. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - As UnitedStatesian says, encompassed by another portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per UnitedStatesian this already covered by the Martial arts portal.--Phospheros (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and update. Broad enough topic for a portal in its own right, can be salvaged through editing and issues highlighted with tagging, so deletion is not necessary to clean it up per WP:ATD. WaggersTALK  12:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By salvaged, @Waggers means "completely rebuilt from a blank sheet", because a set of 6-year-old content forks is no base from which to start building a portal which might actually add value for readers.
 * In the meantime, it is disruptive to continue to waste the time of readers by luring them to a page which has been abandoned for 6 years.
 * The notions which Waggers suggests of editing and tagging are implausible to the point of fantasy, because:
 * There is no tag to identify long-term abandoned portals, and no category to track them, because the WP:WPPORT has never throughout its history engaged in any systematic quality-monitoring of portals
 * Category:All portals currently contains 1,321 portals, of which over 1,000 are in Category:Unassessed Portal pages. That's about 80% of portals to which to no assessment rating has ever been assigned. The portals project has simply never done basic monitoring of quality, let alone tracking of specific problems, which is why hundreds of abandoned portals have rotted for up to 14 years
 * Building a decent portal which would actually add value to readers takes time and research, and knowledge of the topic. Waggers has not identified any editor with the skills and commitment to build and maintain a portal on this topic.
 * For the last 2 months, I and other editors have worked in good faith to try to clear out first the automated portalspam created in the last year, and then the abandoned junk which has accumulated over a decade of neglect. It has been my hope throughout that this would leave a core of portals which add some value for readers, and could be built on.  But if members of the portals project are going to oppose the cleanup of abandoned junk without a mechanism, a plan, or topic-skilled editors to fix them, then it may be time to abandon this approach and simply propose mass deletion of most portals.  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 11 May 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.