Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:United States Marine Corps

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:United States Marine Corps


This page has seen some sporadic maintenance, however the page currently has had no maintainer since the last one was blocked for sockpuppetry. A zealous maintainer is especially necessary when you don't have a randomized carousel of pages to showcase like on other portals (e.g. Portal:United States Marine Corps/biography/2019July is a big fat redlink right now on the page in question.)

Most importantly, blurb forks require attribution per WP:COPYWITHIN. See outcome at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Military of the United States. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC) *Neutral at this time, pending a better reason to Delete or Keep – This portal is being viewed more than many portals, and is being maintained off-and-on, which is better than some, and has many articles. The portal has too many redlinks. The nominator's criticism of the lack of attribution, which is a technical violation of the Wikipedia copyleft, is technically correct but also applies to nearly all heritage portals, which have been implemented using partial copies of subpages. One view is that portals should be associated with an active WikiProject. The nominator appears to be associated with WP:WikiProject Military History and is proposing to delete this portal. The following metrics are based on an observation period of 1 January 2019 to 28 February 2019.

The major problems with this portal are that it is not being consistently maintained, as the redlinks show, and that it is based on a failed model which systematically disregards the copyleft. As User:Finnusertop notes, the attribution problem can be addressed by dummy edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see that the sock-blocked "maintainer" was.
 * I don't know if @Mark Schierbecker is aware of history, but basically Emoteplump was a prolific sock who rapidly created lots of new portals and added themselves as maintainer of many others. The whole lot was mass-reverted.
 * So really, Emoteplump's involvement here was that they applied one piece of graffiti to this portal, and it was rapidly removed. So we can basically ignore that episode.
 * I note that all the related portals have already been deleted, for a variety of problems. Portal:United States Air Force, Portal:United States Coast Guard, Portal:United States Navy, Portal:Military of the United States, Portal:United States Army are all gone.
 * I will examine this one properly tomorrow. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the skinny on Emoteplump. I have amended my comment. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and tag with the Update template. Then notify relevant Wikiprojects that the portal would benefit from updating. The topic meets WP:POG guidelines in terms of being broad enough in topical scope to qualify for a portal. Also, see WP:RIA, which provides information about how to correct attribution issues. North America1000 03:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note deceit. NA1k continues their usual practice of trying to deceive participant in portal XFDs, by making an assertion based on a vague wave at WP:POG. As NA1K well knows, WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".  In this case, the portal has demonstrably not attracted "large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers": no maintenance for years, and only 18 page views per day.
 * This is happening so often that it amounts to a campaign by NA1K of lying by deliberate omission.
 * NA1K is a Wikipedia admin, and is therefore supposed to act with integrity. This systematic lying is not a sign of integrity. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any precedent of update working on a portal? It seems every time I see it on any part of Wikipedia it just sits there for years without anything changing, much like this portal already has. I know "there is no deadline" is a thing, but it seems far too often, people use that as an excuse to not do anything at all and hope the problem solves itself, instead of actually trying to do anything. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the civilly-worded question, which I am happy to answer. The template is only the first step, and it's a new idea I had recently. Comes across as a way to at least let others know that a portal needs updating, rather than at an MfD discussion. Makes perfect sense really. Some deletion nominators have been complaining lately that when portals are improved after being nominated for deletion, it is done only to save the portal. However, this is not always the case. Tagging also makes sense relative to this notion as well, tagging before portals are nominated for deletion, in hopes that they are then improved. Regarding portal improvements, I have had some limited success in the latter steps stated in my !vote to solicit portal improvements particularly when posting at the Wikiproject Portals talk page. North America1000 03:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think that the nominator here is in the right and agree with the assessment, along with the precedent established by all other branches of the armed forces having their respective portals deleted. It would make no sense to keep this one after the others have all been subject to deletion, if nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If I can be my own devil's advocate, it is possible for niche areas to attract more maintainers than some broad topical pages. Our articles about models of aircraft are easier to write than say, aerial warfare at large. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I will sort of defend User:Northamerica1000 against the statement by User:BrownHairedGirl that NA1K is lying. I don't believe that the portal advocates are lying, that is, deliberately misstating facts, about what the portal guidelines say.  The portal advocates have repeated the phrase "broad subject area", unqualified, so many times that they have actually come to believe that is what the portal guidelines say (if indeed they have force and are guidelines).  In their sort of defense, I think that the portal advocates have misled themselves into thinking that "broad subject area" is what the guidelines say.  Therefore they aren't lying, but have confused themselves by repeating the same phrase over and over again.  The guidelines, as they have stood since 2006, refer to broad subject areas that will attract readers and portal maintainers.  However, the advocates of portals have misled themselves into a cognitive trap.  They aren't lying.  That doesn't make their arguments in favor of keeping underutilized portals any good.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent of the other branches of the military having their portals deleted as noted by . has made it crystal clear that the portal space is fundamentally flawed, leading to a myriad of problems that no one seems to be willing to fix. There's a reason that so many portals are being WP:TNT'd in the past few months; namely that they are so moribund and useless as to be entirely beyond repair. This one shows no sign of maintenance in years, nor any willingness from editors to try and repair it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - User:Northamerica1000 has made the case for deletion with the argument to flag the portal instead. The state of the portal was flagged I posted the metrics on Military of the United States were posted three weeks ago, and no one paid attention.  There is nothing effective about applying a template to a portal.  Portals have been categorized as being in need of immediate attention for months, and nothing happens, except that portalistas say that portals should be flagged rather than deleted.  The design with partial copies of pages that are content forks is fundamentally flawed.  Evidently the portalistas have some idea of what the value is of portals that they are failing to communicate, or they have convinced themselves of some unsound argument for the value of portals, such as that every broad subject area needs one.  Anyone who wants to implement a portal using a modern design, such as a mega-navbox, can Request Undeletion, but a modern design can start from scratch without the need to use the old design.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This portal was created in a way that requires a lot of maintenance, which does not happen.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:34, 18 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.