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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Submarines[edit]

Portal:Submarines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal abandoned for almost ten years, Narrow topic and unnecessary fork of Portal:Nautical Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I concur with the analysis by User:Guilherme Burn. It appears that there were originally two portals, Portal:Submarine, and Portal:Submarines, and that they were merged, and the resulting portal is visibly broken, and has red missing links for articles and pictures. (If there are missing links, are those for submarines that are crewed by extinct species of hominids?) Portal:Submarine had 36 average daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 2019 (using that baseline because the renaming and merging complicates the metrics). The portal has four biographies, which is four more than the articles. The merging of the portals appears to have been a failure. This portal should be deleted without prejudice to future creation of a portal that doesn't use partial copies or non-copies of subpages. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obviously not being cared for. No prejudice either way, but it should be noted that Portal:Battleships is a narrower topic than submarines and has so far survived deletion. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Sorry, but this is yet another reason why I asked UnitedStatesian on their talk page to please stop moving portals around. The user moved various pages for many portals (example diff for this portal), but never completed the process, leaving red links on the main portal page. Now it's nominated for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Response This move was done correctly; if you had checked the logs first you would have seen the redlinks are the result of the subsequent erroneous deletion of subpages by User:JJMC89. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You moved the subpages from under Portal:Submarine to under Portal:Submarines as part of a merge. Portal:Submarines was then deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox and the subpages along with it. You or BusterD should have moved them back when the portals were unmerged. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I rarely agree with NA1K, but in this case I agree that these moves are unhelpful.

At the very least, please can we have an end to undiscussed moves of portals. If someone wants to move a portal, please use WP:RM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do, though I would point out in two cases I DID use WP:RM (Portal:Classical civilisation and Portal:Military of Australia) 1) no one participated in either discussion and 2) both resulting moves were done incorrectly. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – No prejudice against re-creation of a curated, complete portal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with strong prejudice against re-creation.

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, we don't need to make estimates of likelihood, because we have clear evidence that since its creation in October 2010‎, this portal has attracted no maintainers and almost no readers.

An abandoned portal such as this is significantly worse than no portal, because it misleads readers and wastes their time. The existence of a portal promises a gateway to more topics, but instead the poor reader lured to this abandoned junk has been hoaxed.

The C-class head article Submarine is a vastly better navigational hub than the portal; and because the head article is written in summary style, it is also and a vastly better showcase. As with most portals, this one is a failed solution in search of a problem. So don't re-create it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only four selected biographies and the selected articles section is not any better.Catfurball (talk) 20:37, 26 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.