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) 05:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Dragon Ball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neglected portal.

• Average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019 are 16 for the portal versus 3735 for the parent article (.428%).
• Created in mid-2007 by Sesshomaru, who only maintained it sporadically for the rest of the year alongside UzEE. Sesshomaru abruptly stopped editing in November 2010, and UzEE hasn't been regularly active since at least 2008.
• Fifteen selected articles, none of which were extensively updated since 2007 outside of routine maintenance.
• I think it's already been established in the deletion discussion for Portal:Pokémon that even internationally popular anime franchises aren't broad enough to merit their own portals.

Time to just delete this already. ToThAc (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I think the backlinks would work best at Portal:Anime and manga. ToThAc (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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), without creating duplicate entries. In this case I think the best target is Portal:Anime and manga, as suggested by @ToThAc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pop culture portals are a privilege, not a right. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. This portal has a narrow topic (a single anime.magna franchise), low page views, and has been long abandoned apart from the usual formatting tweaks.

I looked to see if there was a WikiProject to support it, and found that there is a WP:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball. However, I just tagged it[1] as inactive per Template:WikiProject status#Usage:_Inactive_projects, because the last post on its talk page was in 2016.

I searched the project's talk archive for "Portal:Dragon Ball", and got only one hit: a 2010 MFD notice about WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dragon Ball. As was usually the case with portals MFDs in that era, there was agreement that the portal was unmaintained, but consensus not to delete. Nine years later, it is still unmaintained, and community consensus has changed against retaining long-abandoned portals in the unevidenced hope that someday someone might star maintaining it again. (The essay WP:GODOT applies here). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator User:ToThAc and User:BrownHairedGirl. Should have been deleted in 2010, and still should be deleted.
  • The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore 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. It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers. (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.) Common sense imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense: (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies). Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable. Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
  • Not many articles, low readership, no maintenance for years. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Portal:Anime and manga as was done to Portal:Evangelion ([2], [3]). I just checked all of the "selected articles" and most don't even have articles anymore. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Topic too narrow for a Portal. However, Portal is also now technologically redundant to other superior WP options/tools. For content, the Main Article is a far better (GA rated), larger, structured read (with mouseovers), that is actively monitored and edited. For navigation, the Navboxes on the Main Article are also far better (excellent), and by being transcluded are also kept more up to date. Finally, for a directory of FA/GA articles, the WikiProject Ainme and Manga has a non-POV’ed directory (the portal doesn’t even give this). This portal is therefore “rationally abandoned” by editors and readers in favour of better alternatives, and unlikely to recover from that situation. Britishfinance (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this worthless portal forever.Catfurball (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, per the delete votes above, and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the poor condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, like an article is, since they are for navigation instead. It is therefore improper to use rationales meant for keeping articles to argue that this failed navigation device should be kept. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised or done at the last minute just to stave off deletion. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. The community's consensus not to delete all portals is not a consensus to keep all portals; instead they are to be evaluated individually, as is being done here. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve old and inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. I support replacement of links rather than redirection, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:36, 29 October 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.