Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Angry Birds

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. --Jreferee (talk)

Portal:Angry Birds

Doesn't contain anything useful for a portal and also appears to have been abandoned. Subpages should also be deleted. WOSlinker (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, and the topic has too few articles for a decent portal (Template:Angry Birds). -- John of Reading (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~ delete main Portal:Angry Birds, as its existence is not problematic. While it appears abandoned, and there are currently few articles, we should consider that the franchise has a great deal of media coverage. While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's reasonable to predict that the franchise will be (if not already the case) the subject of many studies into marketing, franchising, business models, etc. into the future. Therefore, the breadth and depth of articles could increase significantly enough to warrant a portal, which someone may wish to revive. Having said that, I'm not an expert on portals so perhaps I'm wrong. However, if it's not problematic, then why not simply slap {{Historical}} on it?

I agree to delete Portal:Angry Birds/Header, Portal:Angry Birds/box-footer and Portal:Angry Birds/box-header, as being of little use and the cause of potential confusion.

-- Trevj (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak delete, per TenPoundHammer's further explanation. I've not really had cause to use portals myself either since joining Wikipedia some while ago. The existence of a malformed portal such as this may encourage others to try to revive it without fully appreciating the work involved and community expectations of portals. Therefore, yes it seems like common sense to delete it. -- Trevj (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John of Reading. It's very difficult to imagine this ever being a functioning portal. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Malformed portal with too few articles to maintain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per my !vote above, I'm failing to understand how the portal is a problematic page, as referred to at Miscellany for deletion. What policy reasons for deletion are there, please? Deletion of the unused subpages can be considered housekeeping but what is to be gained by deleting this portal, which could possibly be picked up by others in the future? Or are we saying that because attention apparently hasn't been paid to the portal guidelines, and that it's not maintained, it might just as well not exist? (As I noted above, I'm not an expert on portals.) Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that portals as a whole are royally broken, and tend to be completely undermaintained. I've been here since December 2005 and haven't once had any use for a portal. Barring my own bias, though, I think it's common sense that a very small number of articles is not sufficient to support a portal or WikiProject, and every bit as common sense not to say "well, what if there are more articles in the future?" You can't build a project on "what if"s. You can build it on "what is". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2013 (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.