Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Carnatic music

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) 05:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Carnatic music[edit]

Automated pseudo-portal built on a single sidebar navbox, previously an abandoned manual portal of very limited scope.

This was created in 2013 an a manual portal, but by its last revision in July of 2018[1] it was still tagged as "under construction", with only 5 selected articles (see Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Carnatic music). The creator User:Selvasivagurunathan m last made any portalspace edit on 15th October 2013, i.e. only 2 days after creating[2] the portal page.(see their portalspace contribs[3].) All 5 articles are biographies, rather than articles about the concepts, instruments, history etc.

It was converted[4] to an automated portal in September of 2018 by @The Transhumanist. So this is now a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Template:Carnatic, with no better version to revert to.

The topic is only a Level-5 Vital Article, so I recommend simply delete it, with all its subpages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 23 April 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

No prejudice against recreation as a fully functional, non-automated, hand-created portal. Per the available content about the topic on English Wikipedia (e.g. Category:Carnatic music), a portal is qualified and viable for the topic. I am against using Vital articles (VA) as a metric for portals on Wikipedia; the selection process at VA is very subjective, often opinion-based, sometimes based upon the simplest of straw polling, and is not reliable or objective. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
100% prejudice against recreation until all mention of "breadth of subject area" is removed from the WP:POG guideline. <sarcasm>Of course, 2,000, 20,000, 200,000 portals that no one reads would be ok, on every possible overlapping subject, as long as some subject-obsessed fanboy or fangirl, or a compulsive "every 'x' must have a portal" editor, took the time to create each one by hand.</sarcasm> I really can't believe there are still editors who cling to the fiction that automation was the issue, and not the thousands of narrow-subject portals that it spawned. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Old portal, 12 subpages, created 2013-10-13 18:33:12 by User:Selvasivagurunathan m. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Carnatic music. Pldx1 (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says everything much more clearly and the portal is unmaintainable, far too narrow in scope, and not useful. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl, who knows what she is doing. Portal author is semi-inactive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete narrow subject and abandoned effort. No recreation except via DRV. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 23 April 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.