Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Soap operas and telenovelas

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. ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] || 18:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Soap operas and telenovelas

Portal created in 2014 and barely updated since, although the creator has been moderately active on other portals, mostly country portals. This portal pretends to be about "soap operas and telenovelas" but never evolved from a selection of content focused on Twin Peaks, that as far as I can tell isn't even particularly representative of the genre. The news section is stuck in 2016. Nemo 06:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:COMMONSENSE says to me delete! —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Portal:Television. We need to rethink our approach here. Rather than deleting content outright, we should generally be merging unsustainable portals up to sustainable ones. bd2412 T 13:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: I strongly oppose both merger and redirection:

Merger just means preserving a set outdated of content forks, which is a very bad idea.
Redirection means that portals links will display a link to a portal which doesn't exist, and then surprise the reader by opening up a portal on a broader topic. Nearly all such redirects have been deleted at RFD for just that reason. It's much better to simply replace the links, as I proposed below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 1 October 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:Television), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Soap_operas_and_telenovelas shows 3 selected articles, 13 selected characters, and 6 selected lists (which are list articles). These 22 articles were content-forked in 2014, and most of them have been left unchanged since then. Soap operas and telenovelas continue to be written and broadcast, so that the subject matter is evolving although the portal is not. The portal had 12 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019. The portal has two head articles, Soap opera with 1413 pageviews, and Telenovela with 613 pageviews, in Jan19-Jun19.
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.
I respectfully disagree with User:BD2412 about changing our deletions of portals to upmerges. They caution against deleting content outright, but portals should not provide unique content. Portals provide arbitrarily selected content that often becomes outdated. There is no need to preserve and build up portals that have what User:BrownHairedGirl properly calls a Rube Goldberg machine structure. Adding more arbitrarily selected portions of articles to an existing arbitrary selection of portions of articles just increases the Rube Goldberg factor. It will not make the higher-level portals sustainable. The proposed upmerging of portals should not be confused with the upward redirection of backlinks by BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The concern about content becoming outdated may be valid in the abstract, but I see nothing in the 22 specific selected articles for this portal that raise such a concern. The largest group is for fictional characters with completed runs, which will always retain their notability and historical importance as previous fictional television characters. bd2412 T 22:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and per the fact there is no good reason to keep portals that are in this state. Low page views and the condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. Portals are not content, so any comparison to how broken articles are handled would be improper. The downgrading of POG cuts both ways - there is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. 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 and should not be saved via merger. A redirect would confuse readers; it is better to replace with a link to the next most specific portal. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is very excessive to want to delete it simply because it is outdated, I think that is something that can be improved. In fact I could do it myself; but seeing that there are only pure users in favor of it being deleted.-- Bradford ✉ 14:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I only speak for myself, but my nomination was not about being outdated. It was about being actively misleading by means of undue weight. Nemo 15:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a topic has proved to be one that doesn't attract sufficient editors to correct problems (e.g. undue weight and being out of date) in the portal then we shouldn't be luring readers (away from articles) to it and wasting the time of editors on it. DexDor^(talk) 20:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Television Portals

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Percent	Comments	Articles	Notes	Baseline
Soap operas and telenovelas	12	2026	0.59%	Two head articles, Soap opera with 1413 pageviews, and Telenovela with 613 pageviews. 22 articles originated 2014, no maintenance, mostly unchanged.	22	Originated 2014. Originator on one-month break.	Jan19-Jun19
Television	84	2972	2.83%	Originated 2006 by editor who last edited 2013.	50	State of maintenance not reviewed in detail.	Jan19-Jun19

Comment - The above table is provided for analysis of the idea of upmerging the child portal with the parent portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Operas and Telenovelas

Delete this worthless junk portal forever.Catfurball (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Imbalanced and unmaintained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per analyses presented by Robert McClenon. Poorly maintained and low readership. ToThAc (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robert's reasoning. These simply aren't fulfilling their purpose as agile topic homepages. SITH (talk) 11:14, 9 October 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.