Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Machine learning

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. MER-C 09:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Machine learning[edit]

Unfinished micro-portal, abandoned since its creation in 2015. The creator User:Qwertyus has not edited since 2016.

The main page is festooned with redlinks. The small set of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Machine learning shows that most are unchanged since creation by Qwertyus in 2015.

After all this neglect, it is unsurprising that this was one of the portals selected by @The Transhumanist (TTH) for conversion in September 2018‎[1] to a wholly-automated clone of the sidebar navbox Template:Machine learning bar. That just made it a redundant clone of the navbox. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

So in May 2018, I reverted[2] it to the last non-automated version.

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 in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers, an it has also been shunned by readers: in Jan–Feb 2019, the portal got only 86 page views per day, while the head article Machine learning got 5,412 daily views. So the head artucle gets 63 times more views ... which is unsurprising, because the head article is written in summary style with prominent links to subpages, and embedded lists, and has a navbox Template:Machine learning bar. So it's both a vastly more effective navigational tool than the portal and a vastly more effective showcase than the portal.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". This is one of the clearest examples I have seen of how the forked-subpage model of portal is massively less useful than the head article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I concur with the analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl, but I note that 86 daily pageviews is considerably higher than most portals. I am supporting deletion because a portal with 6 articles is an abandoned portal, and because the partial subpage copy architecture is a failed experiment. I will strike the Weak if the nominator or anyone else can show that harm is being done, such as displaying outdated information (in a field in which knowledge is updated at about the same rate as robotics rather than ancient warfare). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Abandoned (per edit history) with various template redlinks (e.g. it looks broken down); in contrast, the main article has a vibrant ongoing edit activity, which shows even the editors interested in this topic, don't engage in the portal (despite the template redlinks). As such, it only detracts from the quality of the main articles. Britishfinance (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This portal is a worthless piece a junk that should have never been to begin with.Catfurball (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm active on the machine learning articles and portals aren't where it's at on this, hence it's abandoned.North8000 (talk) 12:05, 12 July 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.