Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Biography portals

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: Procedural keep per WP:SNOW. I would've !voted instead of closing, but the consensus is overwhelmingly clear this was not a proper group nomination. We don't need another one of these [which still awaits closure after all this time]. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biography portals[edit]

Biographies are a broad topic that could satisfy WP:POG? After the discussions below I believe is a consensus of the community that does not. Whatever the biography of a person, it is "per se" a narrow topic and will necessarily bring the same information of the article. The named biographies are a "hard test", it is a consensus that they are extremely vital, but the question is the portals, not the biographies.

Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Several of these articles are not biographies but overview articles (the bio article is at Life of William Shakespeare), so the premise is flawed. At least Shakespeare, Muhammad, Austen, and Arthur are entire topic areas. WikiProject Shakespeare currently has 1463 articles in its scope, all of which are also nominally within the scope of Portal:William Shakespeare. If you want to test this premise you need to go with things like Barack Obama (or, indeed, Trump) that are actually biography articles.
If you want to argue for deleting all portals I might be persuaded; but not these specific ones under the given rationale. --Xover (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1463 articles in its scope and the portal shows only one selected article, Shakespeare's sonnets, since 2006?Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:Guilherme Burn, about Portal:William Shakespeare showing only one article. The portal has an embedded tree structure that is far superior to the usual heritage portal that relies on partial copies of articles to subpages. The tree structure makes maintenance of the portal itself less critical, because updates to the articles are reflected in navigation of the portal tree. The portal is not purely a biography because it is a navigation device for viewing the related content. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep on the grounds that this bundle is already a train wreck because the trains are on multiple tracks being shunted onto one track. I will be providing metrics and comments on these portals, but will note that they should not be considered together. These are seven (by my count, at least) portals for what appear to be six historical figures and one legendary figure who may or may not have corresponded to a historical person, and in mostly different centuries. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that the creators of the Mozart, Snicket, Austen, and Lovecraft portals are active Wikipedia editors and have not been notified of the nomination for deletion of the portals. (I have not yet reviewed the King Arthur, Muhammad, or Shakespeare portals.) It also appears that there already was a deletion discussion of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:H. P. Lovecraft (2nd nomination) which resulted in No Consensus. Should the originators of the portals be notified? The deletion discussion should be addressed; have the circumstances changed, or are there new considerations that should be addressed? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per Robert McClenon. These portals are in very different states of development and maintenance, and cover very different topics. They should be considered separately, and I invite the nominator @Guilherme Burn to withdraw this group nomination without prejudice to separate discussions on each of these portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons outlined above; these portals can't possibly be looked at as a homogenous block, to do so makes zero sense. Bertaut (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metrics for Biography Portals[edit]

I am providing metrics on average daily pageviews for the portal and the head article between 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2019, and brief comments. However, the portals are not comparable. The Shakespeare and Mozart portals, although developed in different decades, are designed without the use of partial page copies, and so automatically update the presented articles when the articles are edited. I am ready to make recommendations on whether to keep or delete these portals if they are evaluated in separate MFD items. The Lovecraft portal was the subject of a recent MFD that was closed as No Consensus, and so should probably not be considered again without either a new rationale or new information.

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Ratio	Percent	Comments	Articles	Notes	Type
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart	8	7789	973.6	0.103%	Created 2018. Originator blocked Jan 2019. New design with internal list.	100		Person
Lemony Snicket	41	3250	79.3	1.262%	Last maintenance appears to have been 2014.	4		Person
Jane Austen	15	6759	450.6	0.222%	Last maintenance 2012.	19		Person
H. P. Lovecraft	7	5264	752.0	0.133%	Maintenance from time to time in 2018 and 2019.	22	See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:H. P. Lovecraft (2nd nomination)	Person
William Shakespeare	18	15651	869.5	0.115%	Originator active briefly in 2006. Portal has tree structure for navigation.	43		Person
Muhammad	16	8048	503.0	0.199%	Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance in 2018.	29	See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Muhammad	Person
King Arthur	10	5930	593.0	0.169%	Originator inactive since 2007. Last minor maintenance 2013.	20		Person

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

!Voting Continues[edit]

Keep all per the above procedural points: King Artur is not a person, the H.P. Lovecraft nomination so soon after the last one closed is WP:BADH, they vary in breadth of subject matter, etc. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:25, 28 June 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.