Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:K-pop

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) 06:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:K-pop

Unmaintained low-viewing portal. Portal:K-pop had an average of 15 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, by contrast with 2292 for the head article.

One interesting aspect of the history of this portal is how many sockpuppet accounts have been involved in its creation and maintenance. Three of the accounts that have worked on the portal are blocked for sockpuppetry. Since I am not a CheckUser, I don't know whether that is one, two, or three humans, guessing one, but don't care.
The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense. It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers. (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.) Common sense imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense: (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies). Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable. Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
This portal makes little use of subpages. It pulls in general articles, biographies, and idol groups from embedded lists. I think that this is what User:BrownHairedGirl refers to as a black box, in which one can view the lists, but viewing the contents of the lists requires complex editing. There are 51 articles in the lists and sublists.
Has never had a maintainer. Low viewing. History of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 17 November 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 a bot (BHGbot 4) which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries. There are 34 links to this portals from articles and categories.

In this case I think that the appropriate new links would be to Portal:South Korea + Portal:Pop music. Alternative suggestions welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abandoned portal with very low views, no maintainers, and on a very narrow topic. Was also created by a long banned sock. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody is interested in this portal anymore. Sock account has fake articles in their sandboxes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:A1candidate/ What is the policy on fake articles left behind by indef blocked editors? QuackGuru (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The amount of available quality articles concerns me for this one, lack of interest isn't the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom; little more needs to be said about this one. Britishfinance (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all the other !voters to delete. This fails nearly every test of portal viability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:27, 20 November 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.