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) 23:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Individual people do not, as a class, qualify for the depth and scope required in WP:POG as clarified by the community in the following MFDs. We have found even big stars like Portal:Brandy Norwood lack the scope required for a Portal topic. Portals are generally problematic as they are either not maintained old versions of the article or navbox based automatic error generating junk.

Excluded are very influential historical figures like Portal:Jesus and any US President like Portal:Barack Obama because they deserve to be considered separately. The community does not need to spend time debating portals on individuals anymore as the results above clearly show consensus has been reached.

• Delete all I created this nomination. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, even Björk? ♥♥♥ In all seriousness, WikiProject Björk has 350+ pages. I don't see harm in keeping, and I'm sure there are others here worth keeping as well. I think nominating so many together was a mistake, but we'll see what happens. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be happy I did not do A-Z! How about this, if two users want to pull a name from the list I'll strike it and we can have a seperate discussion. That will balance between this becoming a trainwreck and having to hold a whole bunch more MfDs page by page that will go like the last 44. That work for you? Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I disagree with the generalized notion that biographical portals should automatically qualify for deletion, and feel that some should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, particularly the portals that were manually created, such as Portal:Björk. It's also a slippery slope to declare consensus so quickly, particularly when many MfD discussions have been based upon automated portals. Some users may be for the deletion of automated portals as a default, but not necessarily for the deletion of all biographical portals, sans a few for high-profile individuals, as a default. I'm not nearly as concerned about the deletion of portals that were created as fully-automated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After this nomination was created two single person portal discussions have closed as keep, but they were not without strong support to delete: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aretha Franklin and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adele. Hopefully this nomination will help clarify something we can encode into WP:POG. The selection criteria here is every single person page sorted in Category:All portals not already nominated for deletion (the sorting seems to follow last name sometimes and first name other times). This is not about whose music someone likes but about what is an appropriate portal scope. Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A. R. Rahman. This person is popular in India and portal has significant content and has useful links in the subcategories section. Mr. Smart LION 05:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - By WP:POG portals should be panes for a vast content. Portals for single biographies fail in WP:POG. The vast majority of portals do not receive actual content for years. Fan-created, after abandoned, do not arouse community interest. Single biography portals are very distant from the main page according to Portals tree and they present the same content of the article, but with a big difference in the number of page views.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - Why have a portal when the biography for the people themselves do the job already? What a gross misuse of the Portal mainspace... –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 14:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - WP:POG states "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." I don't see how most single people really count as a 'broad subject area' unless they are exceptionally influential. If the article scope of a person is too big for a single navbox, then I could see a portal being required - however in general I don't think most single people have that many articles related to them. Meszzy² (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• An extreme example not part of this nomination, but look at Portal:Donald Trump which has a lousy 1200 odd views in the last 30 days which shows readers don't find the portal useful. I've seen blogs about random stuff with much higher readership. It has a broken section header showing a ((1)). The intro is of course about Trump but the featured article is also Donald Trump and shows similar info to the intro. If we can't even have an error free portal on the most well known human right now, why do we need bio portals at all? Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except Portal:Azad Kashmir, which is a region not a person. (@Legacypac, please strike it from the nom).

Single person portals fail the WP:POG criterion of "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". As a result, they are poorly maintained or unmaintained, which has led to many of them being converted to an automated for,mat which merely duplicates the navbox in a bloated form, with much less utility than the navbox because:

• the navbox displays a full list of the articles, but the portal displays only one page at a time.
• the navbox should be present on every page in the set. The portal always requires navigation to a separate page.

The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes:

• both the topic navbox and any related navboxes
• A full summary of the topic rather than an excerpt of the lede.

The pageview data is also damning. See the pageviews for the first 3 months of 2019, for every sixth portal in the list. As you can see, the median daily viewing rate for the combined set of 10 pages is 57. i.e. 5.7 pageviews per portal per day.

The highest median view rate for any those ten portals is Portal:Charles Dickens, which gets a daily average of only 16 portals .. while the head article Charles Dickens get a daily average of 5,471. In other words, the head article is viewed 348 times for every view of the Portal.

Yet again, the evidence is clear that readers simply do not want to use these narrow-scope portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all except struck ones. SITH (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – There are now two separate nominations occurring simultaneously at this time for Portal:Celine Dion, both here and at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Music Portals by Moxy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This one came first. Built off two different lists. Cross reference Portal:Cheese dishes Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Charles Dickens and possibly others. Per many previous discussions (and the two kept individual-person portals Legacypac mentions above) I don't agree that individual people never merit portals, though there must be sufficient high-quality content to support a portal, as well as a lack of BLP concerns. This appears to be the case for Dickens, where there's a large body of works which continue to be the subject of considerable academic interest, as well as frequent television/film adaptations, and considerable ongoing interest in his biography nearly 150 years after his death. This is a hand-created portal dating to 2007. I am sure that there are several other hand-created portals in this list that also have sufficient content. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this nomination is trying to bundle rather too many disparate topics together, and I'm not sure about deleting several of the ones on the list. I suggest we keep Portal:Charles Dickens since he is one of the most influential writers in the English language and a significant historical figure, and we have a fair number of articles about his life and works. I think Portal:Che Guevara and Portal:Claude Monet may well be suitable topics for portals but I'm not going to support keeping them because they were both automatically created by TTH. I'm OK with the rest being deleted, I particularly don't think we should have portals on musicians or actors where the only scope is their work. Hut 8.5 11:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck Mr Dickens as there is a reasonable argument for his portal. Legacypac (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these portals

Pldx1 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

- Old portal, 13 subpages, created 2016-03-30 08:49:12 by User:Mr. Smart LION. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:A. R. Rahman

- Old portal, 29 subpages, created 2010-03-02 23:58:54 by User:FranklinG. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Christina Aguilera

- Old portal, 37 subpages, created 2010-09-13 18:58:23 by User:Another Believer. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Björk

- Old portal, 11 subpages, created 2010-02-28 18:00:22 by User:FranklinG. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Britney Spears

- Old portal, 30 subpages, created 2010-04-06 20:38:44 by User:Esss. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Cher

- Please remember that a maintainer is someone who stepped forward and put her name in the {{Portal maintenance status}} template, atop of the portal's page. this line added 13:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Pldx1 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about the Portal:Donald Trump used above as an example.

• Did You Know that the Trump news tracker is implemented by {{Transclude selected current events | Donald Trump | Trump [Aa]dministration | migrant caravan | days=45 | header={{Box-header colour|Trump news tracker }}|max=8}} ?
• Did You Know that the Selected quotes was created 26 September 2016‎, and was never modified til now, except from (1) replacing {{Portal:Donald Trump/box-footer}} by {{Box-footer}}; (2) suggesting to include the grab them by the pussy citation, with no ensuing decision.

Great example indeed ! Pldx1 (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added maintainer (me) to A. R. Rahman. Mr. Smart LION 14:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep All - I don't plan to sort out an imperfect list that is known to have issues and overlaps other noms. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all these None of these meet WP:POG's breadth-of-subject-area requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Portal:Claude Monet, Portal:Benjamin Franklin and Portal:Alan Turing as all are highly viewed and are of highly notable persons. Gazamp (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I hope A. R. Rahman portal is also kept as it is viewed as much as the above three mentioned portals. Mr. Smart LION 18:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to keep the portal page, you'd have done better to leave the pageviews right out of the discussion, and hope that nobody actually checked.

In the period January–February 2019, Portal:A. R. Rahman had a total of 1,718 pageviews.

In the same period, the head article A. R. Rahman had a total of 599,865 pageviews.

That's 349 views of the head article for every view of the portal. As usual, readers overwhelmingly prefer to use the article as a navigational hub. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The portal has 29/day views, which are not at all less for a portal and it is clear that readers are interested to view the portal. These views are higher than Portal:Barack Obama and Portal:Jesus. Mr. Smart LION 06:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

349 views of the head article for every view of the portal == very very clear that readers are overwhelmingly not interested to view the portal.

The fact that other portals attract even less interest is grounds for deleting them too, not for keeping this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 21 April 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.