Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:H. P. Lovecraft (2nd nomination)

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 to delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:H. P. Lovecraft[edit]

One of the last portals built old style around the time the Portals project was rebooted. We have repeatedly found that single authors/artists/singers etc as topics lack the depth and scope required under WP:POG portal guidelines. The head article is a better starting point for the reader to explore the life and works of Lovecraft. Readers agree because this portal only pulls 231 views in 30 days compared to the head article with 2,934 editors, 850 watchers, 132,604 pageviews (30 days). The portal lacks such useful navigational and summary aids like the great infobox found at the article. Instead the portal is the article "lite" giving the readers much less information then the article. This discussion has been unbundled from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:George Orwell Legacypac (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maintained, 51 subpages, created 2018-05-06 13:56:50 by User:Auric, maintained by User:Auric. [pageviews] Pldx1 (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Due to [pageviews] i.e. $9>8>5$ , User:Legacypac was wrong when giving the 2nd place to H. P. Lovecraft in the bundled nomination: Lovecraft should have been in the third one. FIVE views a day. How wrong are the readers, aren't they ! Pldx1 (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I have stated before, this portal provides a good bridge between his article and the many free images on Commons related to him and his works. While my portal is an attractive portal, there is no way to drive traffic here, except with outgoing links, a problem all portals share. --Auric talk 23:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I have written on numerous occasions, I see no reason to delete all single-person portals. HP Lovecraft and the universe(s) he created, and which due to lack of copyright continue to be written in (eg Gaiman's "A Study in Emerald", and many less well-known works), seem like a potentially broad enough topic base. The portal is maintained, looks attractive and has 10 selected articles (though personally I wouldn't have included non-Euclidean geometry), 6 bios & 15 images, a little on the slight side but could probably be developed further. I love the "Invoke the Eternal Chaos" re-randomise link, which suggests the portal creator cares about the topic. The only major problem I can see is that the head article is peppered with orange-level tags. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "orange-level tags"?--Auric talk 11:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tags with orange bands on the left, such as Template:More citations needed. They are not permitted in any article featured in a portal, per "have no tags displayed denoting clean-up, copyright violation, controversy or similar" in the portal guidelines. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are none in the lede, where you would expect them in a problem article. There a few, but since there are few articles without one, you'd think the portal list to be much smaller. --Auric talk 14:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a small orange band like the one just below could forbid an article to be displayed in a portal would largely simplify the work here at MfD. But this would probably be controversial. Pldx1 (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's got to be merited, otherwise one can simply remove it. And many of the sectional "citations missing" ones can reasonably be removed by adding the cn tag to the specific statements that need referencing, as long as there are only a few. But that's always been the way we've played it on the main page and in (other) portals. I can't count the number of interesting pages I've had regretfully to exclude because someone had slapped an orange tag on the page, and I couldn't see an immediate way to fix the issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auric:, isn't that effective bridge between the article and commons (and the other sister projects, ftm) in the article already, at the bottom? UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I don't see a slideshow there. Could you point it out?--Auric talk 14:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there was a slideshow, just a bridge. I don't appreciate having an honest question answered with sarcasm. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being sarcastic. When I am, I use the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags.--Auric talk 00:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This is a well-maintained narrow-subject portal that is a good slideshow. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why are we deleting well-maintained portals which pass WP:POG? SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This portal certainly does NOT meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. Awesome as he is, he is no William Shakespeare or Jane Austen. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POG says that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". A single writer is not a broad topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope is narrow, but not too narrow - there are sufficient selected articles, pictures etc to give visitors something different each time they view it. It's well maintained, not doing any harm. No compelling reason to delete. Waggers TALK 14:26, 7 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.