Portal talk:Basketball

Status of page

@Northamerica1000: Can I ask why this portal was recreated in defiance of the MFD result above? Is there some expectation things will be different this time, or that the arguments raised in the old MFD no longer apply? Pageviews appear to still be quite scanty even if the out-of-date problems were fixed from before. (Not here to relitigate the entire Portal debate, but the whole point of the Portal sweep was to remove lesser Portals to create fewer but more viable ones... just lazily allowing Portals to be made on every single topic is going against the consensus to try to tighten standards.). If there's no substantial difference from the old Portal, then this page qualifies for speedy deletion as recreation of a deleted page. SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Crossover1370, who created the portal. Certes (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

There are portals on pretty much every other major sport: Portal:Association football, Portal:American football, Portal:Baseball, Portal:Tennis, Portal:Cricket, Portal:Ice hockey, Portal:Sport of athletics, Portal:Volleyball, Portal:Martial arts, Portal:Formula One. Why shouldn't there be one for basketball? Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 23:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The dry, procedural answer: That's a great question for the !voters at the first MFD (which does not include me), where a consensus was found to delete this portal, so you should have filed a perfunctory WP:DRV before recreating, if you wanted to do it by-the-book.

The real answer: Yeah, it's obviously inconsistent. I agree of course that if these other sports are deemed notable for Portals, then Basketball should be too. However, what if all those portals should be deleted and merged into Portal:Sports? It's essentially a game of whack-a-mole for those who believe that these Portals should be merged: if they're all nominated at once, the result will be a trainwreck MFD with too much stuff at issue. If they're nominated one at a time, then they'll each be defended by the exact argument you describe, that what-about-the-other-ones. We're in this inconsistent state because the Great Portal Wars (which NorthAmerica1000 knows better than me) basically paused in the middle in a truce.

Other thoughts: I won't sum up the full Portal debate, but the short version of the anti-Portal side for Crossover1370 - Portals were a nice idea, but they failed. They're essentially a honeytrap now of wasted effort. Volunteer project, so if you want to spend your time that way you can I suppose, but just so you know, Portals aren't used and don't matter. Sobering, but that's how it is. IMO Portal:Basketball should be returned to quiet sleep, but maybe things have changed now? I don't know what the Portal looked like before though, so I think we may be reliant on NorthAmerica1000 for enlightening us on that. SnowFire (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't tell how similar the portal is to the deleted version. I didn't review it for the MfD, as the 40 portal MfDs raised that month included others more relevant to my skills and interests. Let's look at the MfD nomination.

• Neglected portal: the main page alone has 147 edits since June.
• Shameless copy-paste of Portal:NBA: that portal has been deleted. If it had anything in common with the current portal, merging is a legitimate activity.
• Six never-updated selected articles...: 49 articles, 110 biographies, 30 teams, all using dynamically updating excerpts.
• Toronto Raptors ... nothing about winning five division titles and a championship over six years: The article has a substantial section on that period.
• Duke–Michigan men's basketball rivalry article is ostensibly GA class, but fails...: no longer showcased.
• Juwan Howard left the Miami Heat...: the article is now up to date, and no longer showcased.
• Yao Ming retired...: the article is now up to date.
• Michael Jordan has owned an NBA team since 2010: well, good for him. Could that be the flimsiest excuse ever for deleting a portal?
• Tim Duncan retired...: the article is now up to date.

That seems ample evidence that the arguments raised in the old MfD no longer apply. We're really just left with the "delete because it is a portal and a several determined editors don't like portals" argument, as used elsewhere. Certes (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not about the articles, it's about the Portal blurbs. Maybe they're up to date now because they were made just recently, but will they be in a year? Anyway, I participated in the MFD you linked, so not sure why you think a "delete" result in a well-attended MFD buttresses your case.

I won't renominate right away, but I'll just echo my above statement - the anti-Portal side isn't just a few insane fanatics, they convinced others like me. But I'm not in a hurry to poke the bear what with all the drama it generated before except for really obviously bad Portals, and this one does seem more defensible than the worst examples out there. SnowFire (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The portal blurbs will now update automatically whenever the transcluded part of the article (normally its lead) changes. If important recent developments are not mentioned in that lead, that could be an argument for deleting any portals which showcase it, but a better solution might be to improve the article by updating its lead. I'm not claiming that the Biochemistry result buttresses the keep case. In fact, the reverse applies: it's another precedent for deleting each portal simply for being an an unremarkable page typical of the namespace, as was done so successfully throughout 2019. Certes (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

How many basketball players are on a game

? 41.114.211.170 (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)