Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Gymnastics

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. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 02:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Gymnastics[edit]

Incomplete portal. Five selected articles, five bios and two pictures. McKayla Maroney :-\ entry is outdated. Some components were updated in 2013, but no serious maintainer has emerged. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a viable readers' navigation tool.

Alternatively, Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gymnastics/Portal, as it has merit as an editor resource. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This portal has been abandoned for six years after a burst of updates by one editor and partially abandoned for over 10 years. The news section is all dated to October 2014, from when it was last updated. The DYK section was last updated in 2013, despite WP:DYK stating: "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section."

It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over 10 years of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 15 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Gymnastics having 1068 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I am strongly against allowing recreation, as this topic is clearly not broad enough to warrant a portal. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Portal:Gymnastics as per analyses by User:Mark Schierbecker and User:Newshunter12. Portal has 10 articles (guideline says 20 is recommended minimum), which have not even been tweaked since 2014. Portal has only 15 daily pageviews. Uses forked subpages, which are a failed design that most heritage portals share, but which make the lack of maintenance even worse. An editor who wants to create a new portal with an improved architecture will know where Deletion Review is. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12 + @Robert McClenon. This is yet another a long-abandoned micro-portal. The long-term lack of maintenance makes it a clear fail of the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

WP:POG also requires that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal." But WikiProject Gymnastics is "semi-active", so it is highly unlikely to be a fertile recruiting ground for new maintainers.

This should have been deleted long ago.

I also oppose recreation. We have eleven years of evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one, and no reason to believe that will change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.