Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Radio

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. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion of this portal at this time, and neither side has set forth good arguments grounded in consensus-based policy. With respect to the keep votes, User:Graeme Bartlett, User:Nikolas Tales, and User:Wm335td each seem to pose the raw importance of the topic itself as a reason to keep, but do not contest the observation by the nominator that the portal is out of date, underpopulated in terms of content, and contains errors. Obviously, errors should be fixed, and breadth of content should be improved. Those supporting the inclusion of the material should be willing to undertake this task. If there is no such improvement, this portal is likely to be nominated for deletion again, and successfully deleted. With respect to the delete votes, User:Nemo_bis and User:Mark Schierbecker basically point to the condition of the portal, and the absence of maintenance to repair it, and User:Robert McClenon and User:Crossroads appear to focus more on the low page views, along with the same absence of maintenance. The maintenance argument seems to run counter to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement); though the arguments on that page are generally geared more towards articles than other spaces, neither is there any guidance excluding portals from that consideration. I note also that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages is an essay rather than policy, but it is a particularly widely referenced and acknowledged one that has generally been constructed through consensus-based processes. No policy in Wikipedia presently requires content in any space to have any number of maintainers, though such a policy might well be achievable specifically with respect to portals. The argument regarding pageviews, while sensible, is not grounded in any policy established by the community regarding page views for a portal to be considered successful or failed. Another editor might consider ten views per day to be sufficient, still another might require a thousand. Absent community consensus assigning importance to this characteristic, it remains a basis untethered in policy. I would encourage all participants in this discussion to seek avenues to have their criteria with respect to portals implemented as policies, which would certainly enable administrators closing future discussions to do more than weigh the absence of policy-based reasons on either side of the discussion. bd2412 T 04:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Radio

Portal created in 2006, never completed and basically abandoned since 2008. 4 selected biographies, including Terry Wogan which is incorrectly depicted as alive despite having died in 2016. Nemo 20:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a major topic that deserved to have a portal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Portal:Radio had 28 average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, as contrasted with 1520 daily pageviews for the head article. There are 10 articles, which were content-forked between 2006 and 2008, some edits in 2010, tweaking between 2015 and 2018 but no substantive maintenance in the 2010s.
Since the Portal Guidelines have been downgraded to the status of an information page and we have no real portal guidelines, we should 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. This 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 articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad); (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 maintainers, at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained. Any portal that does not pass this common-sense test is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to a future properly design portal with at least two maintainers and with a single-page design not using content-forked subpages. This portal has too few articles, and the articles are not being maintained. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - particularly broken portal. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and per the fact there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, being for navigation instead, so it is improper to try to compare dilapidated and useless portals to articles and say they should just be fixed. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised at the last minute just to stave off deletion. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve potentially inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a major topic.Brain (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep serves as an informative navigation page for our readers. WP:PRESERVE Wm335td (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]