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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Family Guy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neglected portal. This portal was deleted by unanimous decision at MfD in 2006. However it was resurrected in December 2007, and survived a no-consensus MfD in June 2011.

Thirteen selected articles. One was created in January 2008 and updated in June 2011. Three were created in January/March 2008 and never updated. Three were created in January 2008 and updated in November 2010. One never-updated article was created in January 2013. Four never-updated articles were created in January 2014.

Errors

• Seth MacFarlane is missing one show creator credit, two show co-creator and three film directing credits.
• Adam West died in June 2017
• Seth Green gives way too much prominence to his Family Guy voice acting and not enough to his later acting career.
• Alex Borstein is missing four acting credits
• There are 131 episodes missing from the running tally of aired episodes (101 episodes have aired since this portal has been updated at all).

Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see absolutely no benefit to having a Family Guy portal. If specific TV shows get portals, they should be very long running and/or internationally popular, not 15 years long, relatively niche, and almost exclusively US. Kingsif (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This zombie portal had 13 daily pageviews on average in the first half of 2019, as contrasted with 5029 for the article. It has 17 articles from between 2010 and 2014, and no substantive maintenance between 2014 and Oct.2019. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just to note for the record, the first time this portal was nominated for deletion, over a decade ago, the result was to delete. It was thereafter re-created, and the second deletion nomination ended in a low-participation no consensus outcome. I would further contend that there should be no portals, including this one, based on an individual television show. There is no television show for which the topic will ever be broad enough to merit such coverage. bd2412 T 20:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator.
• The argument has been made more than once about other portals, "This is a very popular TV show" (in different countries) but I disagree and concur with User:BD2412.
• 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.
• The errors and discrepancies show the inherent weakness of a design based on content-forked subpages. Low pageviews, not an extensive selection of articles, no maintenance on the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:BrownHairedGirl - The choice as to backlinks would seem to be between Portal:Television and deleting the backlinks. Neither seems obvious. Your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this show is popular in the UK as well as the US, maybe it has a broader following than some imagine. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 19 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) (in this case Portal:Television), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, per BD2412 and per Robert McClenon, and WP:SALT. This portal is about far too narrow a topic. Like nearly every other portal on a single TV it has failed: as RMcC rightly says, it's a zombie portal, with v few readers and no maintainers. Portal talk:Family Guy has had no discussion, ever.

Crucially, it also has no WikiProject support. Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Family Guy work group is inactive, and a search of its archives for "Portal:Family Guy" gives only one hit: a 2011 deletion notice.

To prevent this portal being re-created again, I recommend that it should be WP:SALTed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete You think that's bad? Remember that time that a portal got deleted, somehow re-created, and then abandoned again? (smash cut to 5-minute "comedy" "sketch" at an abortion clinic, and then a re-creation of the WKRP in Cincinnati opening in its entirety) Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Conway Twitty. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt. Is, and will always be, way too narrow a topic for a portal. Britishfinance (talk)
• Delete and Salt I was astonished just to see that Family Guy had its own sub-portal when I was looking over the Animation Portal earlier. I can understand why Portal:The Simpsons exists, because the show has lasted for decades and has had an enormous pop culture footprint internationally, but Family Guy does not remotely share that distinction. If the page has been re-created multiple times, WP:SALTing it might be for the best. NebulousPhantom 01:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NebulousPhantom (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Just like the eponymous show, the portal was killed and came back, and is now way past its prime.
• It should be deleted per the 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.
• May as well salt it too, per the rationales above. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this television show doesn't need a portal.Catfurball (talk) 21:14, 24 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.