Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:September 11 attacks

 __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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:September 11 attacks


Selected article section consists of seven 2008 content forks that have not been updated (with one exception, in 2011). Does not meet WP:POG.

Plagiarized, unless someone can substantially explain why forks would not require attribution per WP:COPYWITHIN. The closing admin agreed with my interpretation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Military of the United States. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Proper attribution would address the copyleft violation, but the whole concept of partially copied portal subpages is an issue. One common method for the design of portals, in use at least since 2005, has involved sometimes large numbers of subpages of the portal, one for each selected article and picture, and sometimes for news items and Do You Know (DYK) items.  Often the subpages for selected articles consist of a copy of the original article, or a copy of the first part of the original article.  The subpages for In The News (ITN) and DYK items may also be copies of the lead paragraph or a portion of the article page.  This approach to design of portals is sufficiently commonly used that it can be considered standard.  However, it is an honorable experiment that has failed, and should be abandoned.  In numerous cases, it has been found that portals have displayed outdated and incorrect information to the reader.  These discrepancies have been especially common with, but not limited to, political leadership.  These discrepancies are a serious problem because they cannot be readily corrected.  Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, meaning that any reasonably computer-literate person can edit an article; but editing the displayed information in a portal requires specialized technical knowledge of how portals are implemented, which is presumably why errors persist, sometimes for years.  An editor who has Twinkle installed can tag articles in need of editing if they do not have the time or knowledge to fix them; but tagging via Twinkle is not available for portals.  Experience has shown that the use of portal subpages that copy portions of articles results in outdated information being displayed, sometimes for years, because it is difficult to correct.  This design technique, partial article copies, has been an honorable experiment over the course of more than a decade, but the experiment should be assessed to have been a failure.  It has also been noted that copying portions of articles to portal subpages without attribution is a violation of the CC-BY-SA copyleft and is not permitted.  Some other design approach for portals should be used in the future.
 * The portal has 23 daily pageviews, as opposed to the article September 11 attacks, which has 13992 daily pageviews.
 * The portal should be deleted, without prejudice to a new portal with a design that does not rely on partially copied subpages. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Portals don't work as intended.  Archiving instead would have been better.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Abandoned mini-portal.
 * WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". 9/11 is a narrow topic, but it could be argued to be broad because it is covered in copious detail. I disagree with that argument, but we don't need to argue the toss because we have empirical evidence that in practice this portal does not pass that test: it has not attracted maintainers, and it has not attracted readers. (In Jan–Feb 2019 the portal got only 23 pageviews per day, compared with 13,992 daily views for the head article September 11 attacks  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 30 June 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.