Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tanks

 __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:  no consensus. ‑Scottywong | express _ 06:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Tanks


Blurbs are plagiarized from their source article, unless someone can 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.

In any case the blurbs have not been substantially updated since when they were created in 2008/09. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, those blurbs need attribution per WP:COPYWITHIN. But since this problem is easily surmountable with a single dummy edit per page, why are you seeking deletion? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Finnusertop, how does a dummy edit create attrbution? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:RIA, "pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted. Attribution can be belatedly supplied by the methods above, using dummy edits to record new edit summaries and via talk page attribution using the copied template." North America1000 03:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral at this time, pending a stronger argument to Keep or Delete – This portal is more often viewed than some portals. In January 2019 – February 2019, this portal had 58 daily pageviews, as contrasted with the main article Tank, which had 1314 daily pageviews.  (The January-February period is used because the portal was renamed in April, making collection of view metrics across the name change more complicated.) Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Tanks shows 13 featured articles, 10 featured battles, and 2 featured biographies.  One of the biographies was added in 2019 by a portalista.  None of the others were updated more recently than 2013.   User:Finnusertop notes that attribution can be taken care of by dummy edits.  Presumably another reason for deletion is that the portal is not being maintained except for one nominal update made in order to give the appearance of maintenance.
 * Procedural keep, without prejudice to a discussion of a deeper assessment. (changed my !vote.  See below)  There are a lot of serious problems with this portal, but the nominator's reason is trivial. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep – See WP:RIA, which provides information about how to correct attribution issues. North America1000 03:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete due to the failure to maintain the portal, pending a better argument in favor of keeping or deletion. The usual design for heritage portals with partial copies of subpages that are content forks is fundamentally flawed.  This portal might be a good candidate for a better portal design.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep These issues can be fixed relatively easily by editing instead of jumping to deletion. --Hecato (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Tank" is "per se" a narrow topic and this portal is abandoned for ten years. Most of the portal content is redundant with the article.

The Wikiproject tank no longer exists.

Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly a broad enough topic, no different than Portal:Battleships. Maintenance issues can be fixed by, um, maintenance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the selected article section and the selected battle section is a big mess.Catfurball (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How are these sections a "big mess"? North America1000 01:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. (changing my !vote) Unmaintained, and adds little or noting to the head article.
 * This is a multi-subpage style of portal, using a farm of redundant content forks to display topics one at a time. These unsourced content forks are almost all unchanged since their creation over a decade ago.  We shouldn't be serving readers this sort of decade-old unsourced material.
 * I am also very struck by @Guilherme Burn's analysis, which noted that 12 of the 13 selected articles are already listed in the head article Tank and that the "Topics" section of the portal is simply a transclusion of the navbox Template:Tanks.
 * Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But the Wikipedia main page requires huge amounts of work; it is maintained by several large teams of busy editors.  A mini-mainpage also needs lot of ongoing work if it is going to value over the head article.  And in this case, that work has not been done, so GB's analysis shows that the portal doesn't add value for readers.
 * The development in so many topics of excellent navboxes has made many standalone portal pages redundant. The navboxes ensure that the head article and other key articles in the topic have effectively got built-in portals, which offer both excellent navigation and most of the showcasing functions of portals, thanks to the preview-on-mouseover available to all non-logged-in readers.
 * Not all topics have good navboxes and other such tools to make the portal redundant. But this one has those tools, so the abandoned portal offers nothing extra. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 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.