Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:NATO (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. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 07:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:NATO


Of the six selected bios, four selected articles and 14 member militaries only one blurb has been substantially edited since 2009, when the portal was last revamped. The news section is breathlessly reporting wire stories from June 2009 (I had to click through to the sources to learn that. Sending 8,000 to 10,000 troops to Afghanistan this year did seem plausible..). Other notable inaccuracies:


 * Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is not the leader of NATO! He has had two successors.
 * Bantz J. Craddock has not been in active duty since 2009, much less as a General
 * James L. Jones is not the U.S. National Security Advisor. That post has been held by six different people since this portal was created (at the rate of turnover of this administration there will be seven by the time this MfD is closed).

Last maintainer was banned for prolific sock-puppetry. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – I concur with the analysis by User:Mark Schierbecker:
 * The portal has 31 daily pageviews in January-June 2019, which is better than most portals, but is less than 0.5% of the 6591 daily pageviews for the lead article.
 * The obsolete information cited by the nominator is a flaw in the heritage portal design consisting of subpages that are copies of pages. The originator edits sporadically but has not updated the portal.  The last substantive edits, as noted by the nominator, were by a now-blocked sockpuppet.
 * Creating a portal is fun. Maintaining a portal is work.  There is no obligation to edit regularly or to maintain a portal, but there is no obligation for the Wikipedia community to maintain unused portals.
 * The 25 articles would actually be a strength of this portal if the articles were up to date, but they are not, and so that is a serious weakness of the portal.
 * This portal really is about a broad subject area, an international military alliance that has been a major contributor to world stability for three-quarters of a century. It should therefore be deleted without prejudice to a new portal with a design that does not rely on copied subpages that become obsolete.


 * Comment – No prejudice against re-creation of a curated, up-to-date, complete portal. North America1000 05:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, with prejudice against re-creation. The current state of the portal is abandoned junk, which has attracted neither readers nor maintainers for a decade. Given that long history of abandonment, there is no reason to believe that any new portal on this topic would be any more successful in attracting the large numbers of readers and editors required by WP:POG.  So just delete it, and keep it deleted. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 27 July 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.