Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:United States Air Force

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:United States Air Force

Portal:United States Air Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal maintainer User:Ndunruh asked me to take over this portal in 2011. I updated the news section monthly, but it was clear then that portals were not going to be attracting readers or maintainers. Accordingly this portal has otherwise not been updated much since it was created in 2009. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Portal:United States Air Force/Vehicle Spotlight/15 says "To date the Air Force has an inventory of 28 Reapers". General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper says "The USAF operated 195 MQ-9 Reapers as of September 2016". DexDor ^(talk) 18:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC
• Delete

One common method for the design of portals, in use at least since 2005, has involved sometimes large numbers of subpages of the portal, one for each selected article and picture, and sometimes for news items and Do You Know (DYK) items. Often the subpages for selected articles consist of a copy of the original article, or a copy of the first part of the original article. The subpages for In The News (ITN) and DYK items may also be copies of the lead paragraph or a portion of the article page. This approach to design of portals is sufficiently commonly used that it can be considered standard. However, it is an honorable experiment that has failed, and should be abandoned. In numerous cases, it has been found that portals have displayed outdated and incorrect information to the reader. These discrepancies have been especially common with, but not limited to, political leadership. These discrepancies are a serious problem because they cannot be readily corrected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, meaning that any reasonably computer-literate person can edit an article; but editing the displayed information in a portal requires specialized technical knowledge of how portals are implemented, which is presumably why errors persist, sometimes for years. An editor who has Twinkle installed can tag articles in need of editing if they do not have the time or knowledge to fix them; but tagging via Twinkle is not available for portals. Experience has shown that the use of portal subpages that copy portions of articles results in outdated information being displayed, sometimes for years, because it is difficult to correct. This design technique, partial article copies, has been an honorable experiment over the course of more than a decade, but the experiment should be assessed to have been a failure. It has also been noted that copying portions of articles to portal subpages without attribution is a violation of the CC-BY-SA copyleft and is not permitted. Some other design approach for portals should be used in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US Military Portal Metrics

• Delete. Yet another abandoned portal, which thereby fails 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". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 3 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.