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: No Consensus. - jc37 22:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Halo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Converted portal on a game franchise. Too narrow scope product portal. Article handles this better. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well this certainly looks different from when I created it. feminist (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a single game is too narrow scope for a portal, provided no additional navigational functionality over the main article. Meszzy² (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to take a look at the last version before it was touched by The Transhumanist. feminist (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, vandalism. TTH and his merry crew did a huge disservice to anyone who thought there was a use for portals [1] The old version actually highlighted featured content. You might want to have adiscussion with TTH about what he did to your work. Legacypac (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:Legacypac, No. Read Yelling Vandalism. Stupid good-faith edits that have a negative effect on the quality of the encyclopedia are not vandalism. They are stupid good-faith edits that have a negative effect on the quality of the encyclopedia. If you have been editing long enough to what vandalism is, and you have, you have been editing long enough to know what is not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This used to be a featured portal, which means that its scope is wide enough to encompass a significant number of articles. And it's not a single game, it's a whole franchise that has spawned other topics. feminist (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to delete. Portals that are rarely used should die, and I don't want to waste anyone's time. feminist (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might not want to give up so readily Feminist; looking at the hits (see the thread at the portal project talk page) it was #253 out of all portals (excluding portal contents &c) during the period that BrownHairedGirl queried.[2] Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That appears (to me at least) to be more of an argument to delete all but the most viewed portals, rather than keeping them. feminist (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Espresso Addict & feminist, I am v sorry: I screwed up somehow in posting the link at WT:WPPORT. The one I posted gave recent hits, not the Jan–Feb figures I had been viewing. I have fixed the link on WT:WPPORT: [3]. I chose the Jan–Feb figures, because they were before the views began to be distorted by all the attention from editors at MFD etc.

As you can see in the corrected list, Portal:Halo is ranked #951 out of 1507 pages. Here is the direct link to the Jan–Feb figures for Halo alone[4]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The numbers did in some cases look very strange! Sorry, Feminist! (Unfortunately I've been commenting on a number of active MfDs, all of which have the same fatal flaw...) Espresso Addict (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again, @Espresso Addict. I'll follow you around and repeat my grovelling apology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, everyone makes mistakes. I self-reverted in the other MfDs, as I think this was the only place where anyone had responded, luckily. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not part of the recently created automated batch. A Featured Portal before the changeover. BusterD (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Old portal, 73 subpages, created 2015-10-31 03:16:32 by User:Feminist. If you, User:Feminist, want to replace the actual portal's page by its before the TTH mess version, then my opinion is: feel free to do that, provided that you (1) keep the ((mfdx|2nd|help=off)) tag, and fill all the ((Portal maintenance status|date=June 2018)) fields. In this case, I will comment as Keep at this time. The "not sufficiently broad scope" concern will remain nevertheless, but we are now and not in a possible future. Pldx1 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless improvements suggested by @Pldx1: are initiated. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep former featured portal. (Looks like the last ever passed by the process.) Should be restored to the featured version. While the topic is relatively limited, if Feminist (or anyone else) is prepared to restore & maintain it, there seems no rationale to delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::ETA: This actually gets surprisingly decent hits, as I wrote above: #253 of all portals (excl. portal contents &c). Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - By WP:POG portals should be panes for a vast content. Portals for single game fail in WP:POG. The vast majority of portals do not receive actual content for years, in this case about four years (See Portal:Halo/Selected article/14 and Portal:Halo/DYK/53 Revision history). Fan-created, after abandoned, do not arouse community interest. Single game portals are very distant from the main page according to Portals tree, 307 pageviews (30 days) for Portal:Halo compared to 81,813 pageviews (30 days) for Halo (franchise) also demonstrates that readers do not see sense in exploring a "single game portal" that shows the same content of article.Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep with the understanding that it may be renominated within 60 days if it has not been returned to its former state before it was broken by the portal platoon. This is also evidence that they should be topic-banned permanently from modifying or creating portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This (in either form) is one of the better maintained portals (it's not showing redlinks, Lua errors etc), but it isn't for a broad topic, (as pointed out above) gets few pageviews compared with the corresponding article and contains things that are, at best, pointless on such a portal (e.g. links to Wikispecies/Wikiversity). Portals should be limited to just broad topics (e.g. video games?) to limit the damage they do to wp - e.g. editor time spent on portals (that few readers will ever look at), noise affecting other editors and the risk of readers seeing poorly-maintained portals. In other words, I think the benefits (if there are any - who might actually use a portal?) of keeping a portal about a topic like this are outweighed by its costs (e.g. encouraging other editors to spend time creating a portal for their favorite VG and quite possibly leaving it a mess). Note re benefits: I've yet to see a convincing explanation of how portals might help readers/editors - just words like "the portal helps you survey additional information on the topic". DexDor ^(talk) 20:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this former featured portal and revert to this pre-automated version. Meets WP:POG. This would require the undeletion of Portal:Halo/Intro, which was deleted per WP:G6 after the portal was unfortunately converted to automated format. The undeletion shouldn't be a problem. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A maintainer is someone who maintains. Reverting would require nothing, since using

((Box-header colour|Introduction))

((Transclude lead excerpt | Halo (franchise) | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1))

((Box-footer|[[Halo (franchise)|Read more...]]))

instead of

((/box-header|<big>The [[File:Halo (series) logo.svg|120px|alt=Halo]] Portal</big>|((FULLPAGENAME))/Intro|))

((((FULLPAGENAME))/Intro))

((/box-footer|))

would obviously produce the required intro. I am surprised that this has not already been done, and that ((Portal maintenance status|date=June 2018)) remains unchanged. Pldx1 (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and revert. Featured portal with sufficient content. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A single game franchise falls far short of the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. More than adequately covered by Portal:Video games. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Narrow scope, which fails the WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This one has not been maintained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the creator has voted delete here. Legacypac (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, my vote doesn't carry any more weight than that of others, when there is no clear consensus for deletion. feminist (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the fact it was previously a featured portal indicates it has sufficient scope for a portal to exist. The rest is a content discussion not a deletion discussion. WaggersTALK 14:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and revert Just because it is a single game franchise doesn't mean it fails WP:POG. This portal has the content and in its previous version was a better portal. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:04, 8 May 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.