Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Halo (3rd 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: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Halo[edit]

Neglected re-created portal. Active franchise, but none of the fourteen selected articles created in October / November 2015 have been updated. It's previous maintainer, Feminist, favored deletion at the last MfD earlier this year.

Most "keep" voters at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Halo (2nd nomination) said the portal should be restored to the time before automation, which occurred in July 2018. Some even said their keep vote was conditional to the reversion. I, for one, am somewhat bewildered by the hostility to simple automation. Regardless, four months later that sought-after change has still not happened, which lands us back at MfD. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This portal, and portals in general, reminds me of the Denver restaurant owner who wanted to sell his land to developers and retire, but the preservationists wouldn't let him because the restaurant architecture gave them '60s nostalgia. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for nearly four years, and is 6 articles short of POG's minimum of 20. There are 27 DYK's, yet they are spread out over sub-pages labeled up to 53. Since 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Feminist, who last updated it in April 2016 (and who no doubt created it in WP:GF), and to their credit supported deleting it at the last MfD. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has had nearly four years of no maintainers and it had a very low 11 views per day from June 1 to July 30 2019 (while the head article Halo (Franchise) had 2,846 views per day in the same period).

POG also requires that portals be associated with a wikiproject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Halo is best described as dormant, with the last editor-editor conversation occurring in Sep. 2016. It also seems to have never had anything meaningful to do with the current portal. While the creator posted about the portal's creation and nomination for Featured Portal status, no one from the project ever responded there or at the nom. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence (when counting the first failed iteration of this portal) shows Halo is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pinging User:feminist, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Waggers, User:Alucard 16, User:UnitedStatesian, User:Pldx1, User:pythoncoder, User:DexDor, User:Espresso Addict, User:Meszzy2, User:Northamerica1000. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom by Mark S and analysis by User:Newshunter12. Low viewing rate and not being maintained. There isn't a problem with all automation of portals. There is a problem with dumb automation of portals, and most of the automation by the portal platoon has been dumb automation. I have suggested the use of automated techniques involving categories for the selection of articles, for instance (if there is thought to be value for the portal in the first place). There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Video games), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Abandoned portal, with trivially low readership, on a narrow topic: clearly fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 6 September 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.