Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Texas at Austin (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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:University of Texas at Austin


Static micro-portal with only one selected article and one selceted biog, abandoned since 2008. Redundant to the head article University of Texas at Austin and its good navbox Template:University of Texas at Austin.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:University of Texas at Austin shows the skimpy list of the sub-pages, including:
 * Portal:University of Texas at Austin/News: the newest item is dated 2008
 * Portal:University of Texas at Austin/Selected article: unsourced content fork of the same topic (McDonald Observatory') since 2007
 * Portal:University of Texas at Austin/Selected biography: unsourced content fork of the same topic (Janis Joplin) since 2006
 * Portal:University of Texas at Austin/Quotes: same set of quotes since 2006
 * Portal:University of Texas at Austin/Did you know: no new aditions since 2007.  . Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this 12-year-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
 * 1) mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead.  So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links.  Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:University of Texas at Austin, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
 * 2) automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than  a click-for-next image gallery on a portal.   Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article University of Texas at Austin, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow.

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. They make redundant the whole model of one-at-a-time excerpts on which this and most older portals were built. Only the mega-navbox style portals such as Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern are suitable for the new era.

But this portal fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies radically changed the game:
 * WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" ... but this portals has been unmaintained for nine years, and it has abysmal page views. In Jan–Feb 2019 it got an average of only 7 pageviews per day, less than half of than the abysmal median for all portals of 16 views/day and a risible 0.43% of the 1,644 daily views for the head article.
 * WP:POG requires that portals have "a bare minimum of 20 non-list, in topic articles". But after ten years, has only 2 articles.

This portal was previously discussed in April at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, a nomination by me of a single page which was hijacked by another editor with the addition of no less than 52 other portals and a change of title. The resulting discussion of this sprawling, indiscriminate set was a bit of a WP:TRAINWRECK. It was closed on 11 April 2019 as keep 8 portals, including this one, but delete the remaining 45.

However, in the discussion only one editor referred to this portal. @User:Kusma wrote: Delete all except Portal:University of Houston and Portal:University of Texas at Austin (these two have some human curated content). No prejudice against creation of good portals about the major universities mentioned in the nomination

It was wise to defer for further scrutiny the two human-created portals in that sea of automated spam. However, after closer scrutiny, the human-curated content here turns out to be minimal, and wildly outdated.

After a decade of neglect, there is no basis for expecting that editors will be forthcoming to rebuild the portal on a new model, let alone maintain it. So I say just delete it. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging the participants at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff: ... and the closer @Amorymeltzer.  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see my long comment on portal DYKs and the inapplicability of WP:TRIVIA at Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Houston. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Espresso Addict, the policy wrt DYKs is not complicated. The purpose of DYK is to highlight new articles.  The hooks are simply a way of presenting those new articles; they are not the purpose of the entries.
 * So the use of five-, ten- or even 14-year-old DYK entries in portals entirely misses the point of DYK. It's all about new articles, not the factoids.
 * If you believe that portals are somehow exempt from the article-space principle of not collecting trivia, feel free to start an RFC, and see if you find a consensus for it. I would personally advise against doing that, because it will only highlight yet another of the ways in which portals have been developed without regard to basic content policies (sourcing is another key example) ... but if you really do want to press the point, then RFC is the way to go. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clearly, it hopeless fails its ostensible purpose, the article University of Texas at Austin serves all introduction and navigation needs better, while being anchored to sourcing requirements.  University of Texas at Austin itself reads with a self-promotional POV, but Portal:University of Texas at Austin reads as a glossy promotional flyer.  All content is forked, but with no referencing, no explicit sourcing, which is contrary to a fundamental of Wikipedia and a reason why is was always doomed to be an NPOV failure.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per analysis by BrownHairedGirl and comments by SmokeyJoe. The discussion of DYKs is a tempest in the wrong teapot; DYKs should have very little effect for or against a portal.  With only 2 articles and an average of 7 daily pageviews, this portal is even more of a failure than many failed portals.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The appropriate venue for an MfD coming so soon after a previous MfD closed as keep is DRV, not a new MfD. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Question for User:UnitedStatesian - Is that a substantive Keep, or a Procedural Keep? I will wait until this question is answered and I have an idea whether there will be a Deletion Review before I withdraw or strike my Delete.  We need to delete these two portals.  Just let me know what route you plan to take.  Please don't be obstructionistic.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that any Portal "needs" to be deleted. I nominate portals for deletion as you know, but if the consensus is not to delete, I move on, and I suggest others do likewise.  Is the plan to keep bringing every portal that had an MfD closed as keep back to MfD until an MfD closes as delete?  It certainly appears that way so far.  I think doing so is an abuse of process.  I don't think anything I have done has been in any way obstructionist to the improvement of the encyclopedia.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to Closing Admin – If this MFD cannot be closed as Delete solely because the previous MFD was closed as Keep (rather than as Procedural Keep or as No Consensus), then please advise me and I will request Deletion Review of the earlier close, and will, if necessary, submit a third MFD nomination. It is my opinion that there was not a consensus to Keep this portal (although there was not a consensus to Delete it), and a new nomination should be permitted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 10 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.