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.
Portal created in 2013 and essentially abandoned since day one. Considering all subpages it has collected 52 edits by 12 editors, but apart from the creator's edits they were only maintenance edits such as deletion notices. The only contributions the portal offers, apart from the list of categories, are a 2003 figure about TV usage in UK and an excerpt about a 2004 TV series. The overview is therefore very misleading and actively harmful.
Nemo11:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator. Yet another severely-neglected portal on a narrow topic, which failed to attract either readers or maintainers. It has been abandoned from the outset, and January–June 2019, it averaged only
19 views per day.
Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case
Portal:Television and
Portal:United Kingdom), without creating duplicate entries. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Since the
Portal Guidelines have been downgraded to the status of an information page and we have no real portal guidelines, we should use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section
Use Common Sense and in the article
common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense. A portal that is only seldom viewed, less than 25 average views per day, does not seem to provide much value. A portal that is not actively being maintained (preferably by at least two editors to provide backup), especially one that has not been maintained for several years, especially in a subject area that is evolving or changing, does not provide current value. A portal that has only a small set of articles does not serve any purpose as a navigation tool and is not consistent with a broad subject area. This portal has no maintenance and low viewing.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
22:14, 28 September 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.
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.
Portal created in 2013 and essentially abandoned since day one. Considering all subpages it has collected 52 edits by 12 editors, but apart from the creator's edits they were only maintenance edits such as deletion notices. The only contributions the portal offers, apart from the list of categories, are a 2003 figure about TV usage in UK and an excerpt about a 2004 TV series. The overview is therefore very misleading and actively harmful.
Nemo11:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator. Yet another severely-neglected portal on a narrow topic, which failed to attract either readers or maintainers. It has been abandoned from the outset, and January–June 2019, it averaged only
19 views per day.
Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case
Portal:Television and
Portal:United Kingdom), without creating duplicate entries. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Since the
Portal Guidelines have been downgraded to the status of an information page and we have no real portal guidelines, we should use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section
Use Common Sense and in the article
common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense. A portal that is only seldom viewed, less than 25 average views per day, does not seem to provide much value. A portal that is not actively being maintained (preferably by at least two editors to provide backup), especially one that has not been maintained for several years, especially in a subject area that is evolving or changing, does not provide current value. A portal that has only a small set of articles does not serve any purpose as a navigation tool and is not consistent with a broad subject area. This portal has no maintenance and low viewing.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
22:14, 28 September 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.