Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rugby league

 __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. Killiondude (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Rugby league

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected stillborn portal.

Five selected articles. Four never-updated selected articles were created in December 2009. One selected article created in October 2012 and updated in February 2013.

Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Errors
 * Darren Lockyer retired in 2011
 * South Sydney Rabbitohs states "they have not won a premiership since 1971" when they won a premiership in 2012
 * Brisbane Broncos' claim that it is the "league's most successful club over the past two decades" is dubious and out of date
 * Sydney Roosters have won three NSWRL and National Rugby League titles since page was last updated


 * 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) 00:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The following table is provided for comparison of the portals for two forms of football and Portal:Sports. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Rugby league

 * Delete. Portal is small and adds nothing above the Mainarticle+Navbox.  Again, despite being a potential fansite, the portal has failed and outside of mechanical edits, has lost any real support since 2013.  The WikiProject Rugby league has not had a proper edit since 2014.  Again, we don't need to score own goals against ourselves here – keeping an outdated/unmanned dynamic portal makes no sense.  Nobody wants to really look after this (which is needed for a portal), and nobody wants to read it (the purpose), makes no sense either. Britishfinance (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this portal is flat as a pancake.Catfurball (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, per the delete votes 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) 22:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep 10,000 potential articles in the relevant WikiProject including almost 100 FA/GA/B-class articles, popular internationally, needs a new fresh coat of paint but no reason to delete this. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, per Crossroads and per Britishfinance. This is too narrow a topic, too long neglected, and it has never has support from a WikiProject.
 * This a relatively narrow topic: a sport which is played to significant degree in only a small set of contries, and patchily in most of those.
 * As is often the case with sports, Wikipedia's well-documented systemic bias has led to it being covered in copious detail, and some editors mistake that abaundanmce of Wikedia pages for the breadth of the topic. SF's comment about 10,000 potential articles is highly misleading: Rugby league articles by quality statistics shows that 7,697 of those are stubs and 3,247 are start-class. There are actually only 219 articles of C-class or higher, and most of the rest are permastubs which exist only because WP:RL/N gives a GNG exemption to players who made even one appearance in a professional match.  The overwhelming majority of those glorified database entries will never be anywhere near the quality standards needed to be selected for the portal.  (Note: I am not trying to start a discussion on the merits of WP:RL/N, just noting its effect on the set of articles)
 * The portal is tiny, wiyth only 5 selected articles and no separate set of biogs, and even that trivial set of content has not been maintained.
 * There is no sign of any active maintainers, and Portal talk:Rugby league has hosted only 4 posts in its entire 13 years of existence. Two of those posts are announcements, and there has never been any discussion there (i.e. one editor replying to another).
 * Similarly, WP:WikiProject Rugby league is not interested. I looked at WT:WikiProject Rugby league and [ searched its archive for "Portal:Rugby league"], but got only two discussions: a 2006 announcement of the portal's creation and a 2010 note in finding more quotes to include in the portal. Nothing since 2010.
 * And in January–June 2019, the portal averaged only 9 views/day, which is barely above background noise.
 * So, in summary, we have: a barely started portal, long neglected, on a narrow topic, with no maintainers and a WikiProject whose marginal interest ended a decade ago. It should have been deleted years ago. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 22 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.