Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Star Trek

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) 09:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Star Trek

Neglected portal.

Damage report! - All 20 selected episodes have not been updated since they were created in November 2013. Twenty selected articles last updated in November 2013. Ten selected articles created in early 2013, five created in April 2012 and five created in 2009.

Showcase selections are not too bad, but I'd question the inclusion of Eric Bana who acted in one Star Trek film. Also the roller coaster that had a three-year run as "Borg Assimilator" seems out of place. I nominated the sub page for Star Trek, which is redundant to the portal itself. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the nominator, User:Mark Schierbecker says, this is a neglected portal, but it is also well-viewed, as portals go, and has a larger selection of articles than many portals that have content-forked subpages. It had 56 average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, as opposed to 5453 for the article. It has 20 selected articles, 20 selected episodes, 5 selected characters, and 10 races. It appears that these were content-forked between 2009 and 2013, and that none of them appear to have been edited since 2013. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The following table is shown for comparison. Portal:Speculative fiction is interesting because it has three subportals on tables of the main portal page. This is a design technique that might be considered by portal advocates as a way of making maintenance more feasible. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:BrownHairedGirl - If Portal:Star Trek is deleted, I recommend changing the backlinks to Portal:Speculative fiction. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon, I left my usual note below for the closing admin, but proposed changing the backlinks to Portal:Television + Portal:Speculative fiction. If you think I was mistaken in adding P:Television, please can we discuss it below my note, so that the closing admin can see the discussion in one place? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:BrownHairedGirl - Looks okay to me. I was really paying more attention to Portal:Speculative fiction because it is an interesting concept with subportals. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fiction Portals

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Percent	Comments	Articles	Notes	Baseline	Deleted	Type
Horror fiction	5	671	0.75%	Created 2010 as subportal of Portal:Speculative fiction. No separate articles.				FALSE	Literature
Fantasy	10	1125	0.89%	Created 2010 as subportal of Portal:Speculative fiction. No separate articles.	0			FALSE	Literature
Science fiction	18	2381	0.76%	Originated 2010 as separate subportal. No distinct articles.	0	This is a subportal of Portal:Speculative fiction.	Jan19-Jun19	FALSE	Literature
Star Wars	26	12711	0.20%	Originated 2005 by editor who last edited 2006. Articles created 2013, not checked as to maintenance.	30		Jan19-Jun19	FALSE	TV and Film
Star Trek	56	5453	1.03%	Originated 2005 by an IP. 20 articles, 20 episodes, 5 characters, 10 races. Spot-check shows articles forked between 2005 and 2009, some edited through 2013, no indication of maintenance between 2013 and Oct.2019.	55	Also has many DYKs, selected anniversaries, selected quotes.	Jan19-Jun19	FALSE	TV and Film
Speculative fiction	62	609	10.18%	Very many anniversaries, Do You Knows. 13 articles, 68 biographies, 17 fantasy works. Subpages are in varying degrees of recency of maintenance, some old, some new. Originated 2005. Science fiction, Horror, and Fantasy are subportals.	98		Jan19-Jun19	FALSE	Literature

Star Trek

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 + Portal:Speculative fiction), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The topic of this portal is a single ~~TV show~~media franchise, which is just too narrow a topic for a portal. Over the last 7 months of MFDs, portals on single media franchises have repeatedly been deleted as too narrow.

These tightly-bound topics are readily linked by navboxes, which make portals largely redundant. Navboxes are vastly better navigational tools, because a) they offer way more links than a portal does, and b) the navboxes are (or should be) transcluded onto every article in their set, so they are usable without leaving the article page ... whereas the portal always requires a trip to a separate page. In this case, editors have done a great job of building such a comprehensive set of navboxes that there is even a navbox of the navboxes: Template:Star Trek navboxes.

This portal was a WP:Featured portals, before that process was discontinued. However, I attach v little weight to that label. It is notable that WP:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Star Trek was conducted without any use of a checklist of criteria; like nearly every FP review I have examined, it's mostly just a list of congrats. The preceding WP:Portal peer review/Star Trek/archive1 is more detailed, but also has no checklist of criteria. And like every other such FP process, the discussion is all about technical issues; there is not even at attempt to evaluate the merits of the selected contents of the portal. Issues such as balance, POV, and quality are entirely absent, which is absurd.

And to add to the fun, one of the key figures in the FP process was Cirt (talk · contribs), who has been blocked since 2018 for widespread sockpuppetry. I have not tried to assess what impact the sockpuppetry might have had on the FP process.

There is no sign of any ongoing editor engagement with the portal. Discussion at Portal talk:Star Trek/Archive 1 stopped abruptly in September 2013 in the run-up to the FP review (see Portal talk:Star_Trek/Archive_1#FA / GA Change), and there has been no discussion at Portal talk:Star Trek since then.

The portal never seems to have had much support from the WP:WikiProject Star Trek. A search of its talk page archives for "Portal:Star Trek" gives only two hits: a 6-post 2009 discussion about the portals; neglect, and another 6-post discussion in 2013: Quality improvement drive for Portal:Star Trek. Just like the portal talk page, there has been no discussion since 2013.

So unless there is some influx of multiple editors committed to complete overhauling the portal after 6 years of neglect, it cannot have a future. And even if they do appear and work like beavers, I am unpersuaded that any portal would add significant value to a topic which is already so exceptionally well-served by other navigational tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete due to lack of maintenance since 2013. I disagree with User:BrownHairedGirl's statement that the topic is a single TV show. It is a franchise with multiple TV shows and multiple movies. However, she is right that the portal has been neglected, and that other portals based on franchises have been typically been deleted, because they have also been neglected. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Portal is now technologically redundant to other superior WP options/tools. For content, the Main Article is a far better (GA rated), larger, structured read (with mouseovers), that is actively monitored and edited. For navigation, the Navboxes on the Main Article are also far better, and by being transcluded are also kept more up to date. Finally, for a directory of FA/GA articles, the WikiProject Star Trek has the full non-POV’ed directory. This portal is therefore “rationally abandoned” by editors, Trekkies, and readers in favour of better alternatives, and unlikely to recover from that situation. Britishfinance (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Memory Alpha, a Fandom/Wikia encyclopedia, is likely eating Wikipedia's lunch in terms of contributions, page views, and the like. So question, is that site licensed under CC-SA whereby we could transclude the that portal here? If not, I'd be fine with a delete provided that the XfD closer (may need two or more) verify with relevant Wikipedia articles and disperse and merge said portal content into appropriate article pages. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, per the delete votes above, and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Relatively low page views and the poor 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, like an article is, since they are for navigation instead. It is therefore improper to use rationales meant for keeping articles to argue that this failed navigation device should be kept. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised or done 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. The community's consensus not to delete all portals is not a consensus to keep all portals; instead they are to be evaluated individually, as is being done here. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve old and inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. I support replacement of links rather than redirection, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:56, 27 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.