BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) Note on backlinks |
BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) delete |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
*'''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 ([[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 4|BHGbot 4]]) which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries. |
*'''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 ([[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 4|BHGbot 4]]) which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries. |
||
:In this case I think that the appropriate new links would be to [[Portal:Animation]] + [[Portal:Television]]. Alternative suggestions welcome. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 07:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC) |
:In this case I think that the appropriate new links would be to [[Portal:Animation]] + [[Portal:Television]]. Alternative suggestions welcome. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 07:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete'''. As noted above, this is too narrow a topic for a portal, and it is poorly maintained. It's not completely abandoned, but it has a lot of stale content. For example, the most recent DYK item is [[Portal:The Simpsons/Did you know/26]], created in January 2013. Some older DYK pages are fake DYKs, which usurp the good name of the scrutinised process of [[WP:DYK]] for trivia which has never been part of DYK, e.g. [[Portal:The Simpsons/Did you know/15|/15]] and [[Portal:The Simpsons/Did you know/22|/22]]. |
|||
:Some editors above seem to argue that it's not narrow, pointing to the number of quality articles. However, I believe that is mistaken: narrowness is a property of the topic, not of en.wp's coverage of that topic. More articles on any given topic doesn't increase the number of readers interested in that topic, regardless of whether that topic is [[The Simpsons]] or [[Clann na Poblachta]] or [[Petah Tikva]] or [[vacuum cleaner]]s or the [[lesser crested tern]], or even [[User:BrownHairedGirl/Incubator — Ballyporeen|Ballyporeen]]. |
|||
:The topic here is a single television series, and while it's a very popular TV series, it's still only one of many many thousands of TV shows. Due to en.wp's well-documented [[Wikipedia#Systemic_bias|systemic bias]], it is covered on Wikipedia in copious detail ([https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?ns%5B0%5D=1&search_max_results=500&cb_labels_no_l=1&depth=99&cb_labels_yes_l=1&project=wikipedia&edits%5Banons%5D=both&edits%5Bbots%5D=both&edits%5Bflagged%5D=both&cb_labels_any_l=1&interface_language=en&categories=The%20Simpsons&language=en&show_redirects=no&doit= 905 un-redirected articles]) ... but a narrow topic covered in copious detail is still a narrow topic. |
|||
:And as [[User:Newshunter12|Newshunter12]] rightly notes, a portal is redundant for a tightly-bound topic such as this where the comprehensive set of 12 navboxes in [[:Category:The Simpsons templates]] can provides much better navigation. Navboxes have the key advantage that the reader can move directly from page to page, rather than having to load a separate portal page. |
|||
:[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] and [[User:Newshunter12|Newshunter12]] both usefully points to the portal's low readership, and contrast it with the very high readership of the head article. Readers flock to the head article, which is viewed 377 more than the portal. (And that's not due to lack of links: there are [https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?interface_language=en&show_redirects=no&links_to_any=Portal:The%20Simpsons%0APortal:Simpsons&cb_labels_no_l=1&cb_labels_yes_l=1&edits%5Bflagged%5D=both&project=wikipedia&cb_labels_any_l=1&ns%5B0%5D=1&ns%5B14%5D=1&active_tab=tab_templates_n_links&edits%5Banons%5D=both&language=en&search_max_results=500&edits%5Bbots%5D=both&templates_yes=&doit= 638 links to the portal from from articles and categories]). |
|||
:There is a [[WP:WikiProject The Simpsons]], and it's still just about active, with the odd human post (latest was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Simpsons&diff=914263281&oldid=912481589 3 September 2109]). But it shows little interest in the portal. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Portal%3AStar+Wars%22&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+The+Simpsons%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 searched its talk archive for "Portal:The Simpsons"], and like NH12 I found that the last mention of the portal was [[WT:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive_8#Bot_now_updates_portal_recognized_content|in June 2011]]. Nothing in the last 8 years. |
|||
:The redundancy and resulting lack of interest from both readers and editors makes another excellent illustration of [[User:Britishfinance]]'s concept of "rational abandonment", i.e. readers and editors don't use it because we already have much better tools for navigating the topic. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 09:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:36, 22 November 2019
Portal:The Simpsons
- Portal:The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unmaintained, low usage portal, with only ~1,000 pageviews in the preceding 30 days. For comparison, my own userpage had 733 pageviews in the preceding thirty days. And, I'm a nobody! It looks like it gets an annual update following the conclusion of a preceding television season and that's it. Worse still, on its "Related portals" section there is still one (perhaps more) redlink to the Futurama portal, which was deleted following unanimous consensus at this MfD discussion. Even if bot-created portals are discouraged, if and when some willing editors want to coalesce together, perhaps as a sub-group of an applicable WikiProject, I'm sure there are some semi-automated portal creation and editing scripts that would simplify re-creation of a future The Simpsons portal. Doug Mehus T·C 02:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - I am not convinced that page views alone is a criteria for deletion per WP:POPULARPAGE. Yes I am aware it is referring to an article, but you are treating this portal as one. What is striking to me for a keep is the amount of GA, FL, and FA articles that are present to choose from. Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons has the amounts at 22 FA, 22 FL, and 344 GA. Portals are meant to introduce users to the most important topics in a topic area showing high quality content, and should act as a navigational aid. They also act as recruiting for editors to join related Wiki-projects. As with other portal discussions here, there are things out there that can be done as deletion should only be used as a last resort. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep has something of an active maintenance and is broad and popular. Kingsif (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - The first half of 2019 is a more substantial baseline than thirty days. During the first half of 2019, the portal had a daily average of | 17 pageviews, and MFD has commonly taken low pageviews into account in deletion discussions. The article had 6548 average daily pageviews in the same period.
- A little-viewed portal either is well-maintained or poorly maintained. If it is poorly maintained and little-viewed, it has no purpose. If it is well-maintained but little-viewed, it is a distraction of the effort of its maintainer from what could be the improvement of articles, which are the real reason for Wikipedia.
- Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:The_Simpsons/ shows 29 episodes and 26 general articles, which were content-forked in 2007 and 2008. Some of them were bot-edited in 2010 and have been unchanged since then. A few have been tweaked by a human in 2019. Have not done an exhaustive analysis on the subpages, but I have seen no evidence of substantive maintenance.
- Episodes are in the past. The past does not change, but comparisons of the past with the present can change. The general articles include biographies of living persons, for which content-forks have been shown, over and over again, to be unsound.
- Low viewing. Apparently poorly maintained, but, if well maintained, distracting from maintenance of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and oppose re-creation Long abandoned junk portal. First 17 articles were forked in 2007 by a now indefed sock and have only undergone trivial updates (links, disambiguation, etc.) or none at all, while the later 10 were created between 2008-11 and have not been meaningfully updated. 24 episode articles forked in 2007 by the same sock and only 1 was ever meaningfully updated. 5 more forked between 2008-11, and have not been meaningfully updated. 11 gallery pictures added from 2007-11, and Portal:The Simpsons/Selected picture/1 was deleted from commons in 2012 and Portal:The Simpsons/Selected picture/11 in June 2014, yet these sub-pages remain part of the portal.
- Had a very low 17 views per day in the first half of 2019, 0.26 percent of the 6,548 views per day the FA-Class head article The Simpsons had in the same period. This is a significant long term decline from the 39 views per day the portal had in the second half of 2015, the earliest data available. The associated WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons, appears to be inactive as the last editor-editor conversation (where one editor responded to another) was a June 2015 question, which drew August and October 2015 responses. The portal was last mentioned (excluding a notice of this MfD) on the talk page in Dec. 2011 in a post primarily about other project stuff. All that readers need to explore this topic is the Featured Article The Simpsons, which also has a set of very rich and versatile navboxes. Not a rotted portal. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @Knowledgekid87, @Kingsif, @Robert McClenon Please read my above deletion vote and reconsider how you voted. This portal was primarily the creation of an indefed sock, has been essentially abandoned since 2011, most content dates to 2007, the inactive WikiProject has been completely uninterested in it for eight years, and the portal's head article is a Featured Article (the finest content on Wikipedia). That The Simpsons itself is popular is not a reason to keep, just as it wasn't for Portal:Middle-earth and Portal:Star Wars. How much more evidence and years of trying is needed to prove editors and readers do not want this portal? Newshunter12 (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- In this case I think that the appropriate new links would be to Portal:Animation + Portal:Television. Alternative suggestions welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. As noted above, this is too narrow a topic for a portal, and it is poorly maintained. It's not completely abandoned, but it has a lot of stale content. For example, the most recent DYK item is Portal:The Simpsons/Did you know/26, created in January 2013. Some older DYK pages are fake DYKs, which usurp the good name of the scrutinised process of WP:DYK for trivia which has never been part of DYK, e.g. /15 and /22.
- Some editors above seem to argue that it's not narrow, pointing to the number of quality articles. However, I believe that is mistaken: narrowness is a property of the topic, not of en.wp's coverage of that topic. More articles on any given topic doesn't increase the number of readers interested in that topic, regardless of whether that topic is The Simpsons or Clann na Poblachta or Petah Tikva or vacuum cleaners or the lesser crested tern, or even Ballyporeen.
- The topic here is a single television series, and while it's a very popular TV series, it's still only one of many many thousands of TV shows. Due to en.wp's well-documented systemic bias, it is covered on Wikipedia in copious detail (905 un-redirected articles) ... but a narrow topic covered in copious detail is still a narrow topic.
- And as Newshunter12 rightly notes, a portal is redundant for a tightly-bound topic such as this where the comprehensive set of 12 navboxes in Category:The Simpsons templates can provides much better navigation. Navboxes have the key advantage that the reader can move directly from page to page, rather than having to load a separate portal page.
- Robert McClenon and Newshunter12 both usefully points to the portal's low readership, and contrast it with the very high readership of the head article. Readers flock to the head article, which is viewed 377 more than the portal. (And that's not due to lack of links: there are 638 links to the portal from from articles and categories).
- There is a WP:WikiProject The Simpsons, and it's still just about active, with the odd human post (latest was 3 September 2109). But it shows little interest in the portal. I searched its talk archive for "Portal:The Simpsons", and like NH12 I found that the last mention of the portal was in June 2011. Nothing in the last 8 years.
- The redundancy and resulting lack of interest from both readers and editors makes another excellent illustration of User:Britishfinance's concept of "rational abandonment", i.e. readers and editors don't use it because we already have much better tools for navigating the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)