Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Military of the United States

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. (Copying from articles to portals without attribution is an infringement of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Military of the United States

Subpages are plagiarized (e.g. Portal:Military of the United States/Equipment), and need to be attributed back to their source. See WP:COPYWITHIN. Last news article is from 2011 (I wrote that one). Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Portal:United States Army in discussion and in closing.

Keep nominee does not understand how subpages and attribution works for portals....no plagiarism. No valid reason for deletion of a portal with featured content. --Moxy 🍁 05:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:PWP#Broad Subject Area Is Arbitrary, If a portal topic is broad, it can hardly be integrated into another portal. A narrow portal topic can easily be integrated into another topic. This is the case here.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't get more broad then the biggest budget in the world... with thousands and thousands of related articles that can be used...in fact there is 1,197 featured and 3,088 good articles. So would have to say without dought its a huge topic with a vast selection of FA and GA content. This is a perfect example of what the community was referring to during the huge RfC about retaining and improving.. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals.--Moxy 🍁 02:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Heritage-style portals with subpages snarf up portions of articles and display them to the user as outward-facing content. One disadvantage of this capability is that it can result in obsolete information being displayed to the reader of the portal, even after the article from which the material was copied has been updated. I would have said to look at Portal:Zimbabwe, which said that Robert Mugabe was President of Zimbabwe, when Zimbabwe says correctly that he was overthrown in 2017, as an example of this problem, but the MFD for that portal was closed as delete (thanks, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus) a few hours ago. The copying and pasting of material from articles to portals is a feature and a misfeature of portals. It is not, to the best of my knowledge, considered an infringement of the copyleft. It is, however, a reason why portals that are not being maintained properly should be deleted, because they may contain lies that were earlier true.

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Ratio	Percent	Comments	Articles	Type
United States Army	50	4430	88.6	1.1%	Portal appears to have been last maintained in 2016. Originator last edited in 2014.	13	Military
Military of the United States	46	3246	70.6	1.4%	Originator last edited in 2014. Appears to have been last maintained in 2010. Many articles, and calendar of dates, but not currently maintained.	82	Military

Question - Who is maintaining the portal, and at what frequency? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This portal has a very typical portal history; created some years ago and largely unmaintained since. For example, the last equipment sub-page (Portal:Military of the United States/Equipment/32) was created in 2010 and neither the page creator nor anyone else who has seen that page has corrected the obvious markup error. If the portal was being maintained subpages for new equipment (e.g F-35) would also probably have been added (perhaps replacing some older pages). DexDor^(talk) 15:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ - This portal is not being maintained. Most portals, whether heavily viewed or lightly viewed, are not being maintained. The advocates of portals find it easy to say that the critics of portals should work on improving portals rather than deleting them, but, although the advocates scold the critics, the advocates don't do anything. Both this portal and Portal:United States Army are being actively viewed, so that maintenance would add value. We don't need two US military portals. Portal:United States Army can be merged into this one. Both this portal and the other US military portal are being viewed (which is more than can be said for many portals.) If this portal is deleted, it should be deleted without prejudice. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the out-of-date news section. I also culled poor quality articles on the equipment list from 32 down to 5; and the Featured article section from 51 to 43. The quality U.S. military articles on this encyclopedia are overwhelmingly skewed towards ships and aircraft, and this is apparent looking at the newly pared list. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another abandoned portal.

It has lots and lots of sub-pages, but nearly all of those I checked had not been edited at all for over 600 weeks, and most of the rest were unchanged for over 400 weeks.

An outdated set of content forks is not redeemed in any way by being a large set of outdated content forks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as per User:BrownHairedGirl's statement that an outdated set of content forks is not redeemed in any way by being a large set of outdated content forks WP:OUTFORK. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 24 June 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.