Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Motorsport

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [spill the beans] || 01:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Motorsport

 * – (View MfD)

Portal created in 2007 and hardly developed since. Sports news from 2016 and features 17 articles selected according to inscrutable criteria, including one (Formula Three Euroseries) about an initiative incorrectly described as still existing. Nemo 15:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – I commented-out the news section of the portal using "" (diff). It is now no longer displayed to readers. North America1000 21:01, 30 September 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) 21:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The portal had 14 daily average pageviews in the first half of 2019, while the article had 309 daily average pageviews (not normally enough article accesses to be support a portal). Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Motorsport shows 17 articles, 10 biographies, 14 pictures, and miscellaneous pages.  The articles were content-forked in 2007.  Spot-checking shows that some of them have been unchanged and some have had cosmetic maintenance, mostly before 2017, and at least one has been updated on 30 September 2019, after this MFD was filed.
 * Since the Portal Guidelines have been downgraded to the status of an information page and we have no real portal guidelines, we should 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.  This 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 articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad); (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 maintainers, at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained.  Any portal that does not pass this common-sense test is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
 * This portal is lightly viewed, and the viewing of the head article is at a level that normally will not support a portal. It is unlikely that any maintenance being performed in the next seven days is likely to result in more substantial viewing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - the problem nominator referred to is now fixed by rewording. Portal/Guidelines is also included. Obviously motorsports is broad enough subject. I see no problem. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nemo and Robert McClenon, and per the fact there is no good reason to keep portals that are in this state. Very low page views and the condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. Portals are not content, so any comparison to how broken articles are handled would be improper. The downgrading of POG cuts both ways - there is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. 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. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and per @Robert McClenon. It seems clear that this portal has not been properly maintained since its creation 12 years ago, and that as a result it has long since been serving readers with info which is simply wrong.  It is a grave disservice to our readers to lure them away from well-maintained articles to abandoned junk such as this.
 * The low viewing rate is, as @Robert McClenon right notes, a good indication that the portal is unlikely to attract maintainers. (Editors don't edit pages which they don't visit, and those who do stumble onto it are unlikely to bother edit a bizarrely-complex page which hardly anyone reads).
 * The former guideline WP:POG wisely recommended that a portal should be associated with a WikiProject. But in this case, as with so many other portals, the WP:WikiProject Motorsport seem unintersted in the portal.  A search of its talk page archives shows only one discussion about the portal: a June 2009 discussion about quotes.  Not a mention in the ten years since then. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 3 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.