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. Aside from the blanket keeps, some editors advocated for keeping one or two of the portals; however, I find consensus to delete all 25. The stronger arguments focus on the portals not covering broad subjects, lack of readership (pageviews), and lack of maintenance since portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers per WP:POG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin - all of these are based on subpages which will also need to be deleted if this closes delete

Single person and band music portals built by User:Moxy. Most he created and a few he built out the portal and the subpages after someone else started the page. Moxy supports deletion of these pages now [1] Many MFDs have found even top singers and bands are not broad enough topics to meet WP:POG.

See also extensive reasoning at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#People Portals A-C Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now Portal:Elvis Presley and Portal:The Beatles; Delete the rest, including, of course, all of their many, many, many subpages, as not meeting the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. I note that Elvis Presley and The Beatles are Level-3 Vital Articles (i.e., the top 1,000) and have WikiProjects dedicated to them. I focus on the guideline's wording, not a portal's ancestry or maintenance state (unless it is an absolute unsalvageable mess, of course, in which case WP:TNT would apply). UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UnitedStatesian, even Elvis and the Beatles have truly abysmal levels of pageviews. See the figures for January–March 2019:

  1. Portal:The Beatles: Daily average=15
  2. Portal:Elvis Presley: Daily average=12.

  The data is there time and time and again. It repeatedly shows that readers simply do not want this type of navigation for a single narrow topic. The head article is a vastly better navigational hub in most cases, and clearly does the job well enough for readers not to be looking for portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • • @BrownHairedGirl: 15 a day? That has to be the busiest portal other than Portal:Current events. I'm serious, is there one that gets more page views than that? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All. No prejudice toward nominating separately. Also consider only bundling the newer, automated portals, and omitting the curated ones from this nomination, to perhaps be nominated individually.

• Importantly, users may not realize that some portals listed here are curated, instead just assuming that they're all automated. Per WP:PRESERVE, I feel that curated portals should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
• Many of these portals are based upon major musicians and bands that have significant content about them available on Wikipedia. Two have already been identified in the opinion of the !vote above as meeting WP:POG.
• Bundling for these portals in this manner makes researching each portal individually, on a case-by-case basis, and then providing rationales for each one, extremely labor-intensive and time-consuming. Bundling makes it easy to cast a single !vote for the bunch, but significantly hinders the ability for users to discuss each one individually.
• While Moxy may have been the creator, from a spot check, some have been expanded by various other users.

• For curated portals, this typically needs to ascertained by viewing the Revision histories of a portal's subpages.
• Main portal pages for curated ones often provide no evidence of portal updates, improvements or maintenance, because additions and changes typically occur on subpages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all STOP typing stuff up that insinuates that I said something incorrectly. Your participation around portals is part of the problem not part of the solution. These are very old portals although several have been "upgraded" to the automated design. The nomination clearly says they all have subpages. The guy that built them has said he does not maintain them anymore. Check the talkpages and you will find little evidence anyone else maintains them. Do your own investigation and show us which ones are maintained instead of vaguingly telling everyone we are too dumb to figure things out. Even reading the portals for the live people who are still active you can tell they are out of date forks of mainspace. Also, nothing you typed goes to the core issue that single people/bands do not meet WP:POG and we have deleted nearly every example brought to MFD this year, old style and new style. See [2] Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd sentence of WP:PRESERVE is "Preserve appropriate content.". Portals are a copy of content. No content (i.e. facts about the world outside wp) should be lost from wp by deletion of portal pages. DexDor ^(talk) 17:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - 1. These narrow topic portals (biographies, objects, companies, etc.) present exactly the same content as the article. (I have not found a tool that allows me to compare wikilinks (Forward-links), but they are visibly the same). 2. These narrow-topic portals present a relation "(portal pageviews * 100) / article pageviews < 0.1", usually portals with broad topics have this relation "> 0.1", this shows that readers do not use these portals to seek new information about the topic. 3. Purposes of portals#3, Providing bridges between reading and editing. The vast majority of the portals listed fail in this one. 4. These portals are very distant from the main page according to Portals tree fail in aiding navigation.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. A single musician or band fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should cover "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 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/People Portals A-C. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. I was working from two totally different lists. At least I don't make duplicate portals. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these portals

Pldx1 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

- Old portal, 15 subpages, created 2006-11-01 14:17:51 by User:Metnever. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Rush

- Old portal, 20 subpages, created 2007-12-12 02:17:46 by User:MegX. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Led Zeppelin

- Old portal, 23 subpages, created 2010-05-14 07:06:31 by User:Gabe19. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Janet Jackson

- Old portal, 35 subpages, created 2007-05-07 08:09:39 by User:Janadore. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Aerosmith

- Old portal, 102 subpages, created 2005-12-02 12:28:35 by User:194.80.20.10. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:The Beatles

- Old portal, 333 subpages, created 2007-06-25 17:16:45 by User:Smithcool. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:U2

- Old portal, 40 subpages, created 2007-12-25 15:29:36 by User:Riana. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Elvis Presley

- Old portal, 26 subpages, created 2011-01-05 13:31:42 by User:Tomcat7. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Miles Davis

- Old portal, 16 subpages, created 2011-07-09 10:34:56 by User:Ryoga Godai. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Whitney Houston

- Old portal, 56 subpages, created 2007-02-14 22:37:13 by User:HK51. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:AC/DC

None of these 27 portals are maintained, at least not to the point that someone stepped forward and put her name in the maintainer= item of the maintenance template. All are to be deleted if the situation remains. Moreover, this doesn't preclude the argument about 'no single singer'.

Pldx1 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – As per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, it is against Wikipedia policy for a maintainer to be required. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTCOMPULSORY says Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. And this applies exactly here: if no one wants to maintain any of these portals, then no one else is required to assume the burden of keeping such abandoned remains of the past. And therefore, delete them all is what to be done. Pldx1 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it is unfair to make a !vote contingent on a maintainer's comment if only the first editor was notified; accordingly (and only because it seems you are soliciting such a comment) I have put the MfD notice for two of these on two WikiProject talk pages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear User:UnitedStatesian. The WP:NOTCOMPULSORY argument is a double edged sword. When an portal is not maintained to the point that no maintainer1= is provided, this is a fact. When I say that I could change my opinion from Comment to Keep if a maintainer appear, this is another fact. But I can also change my opinion from Comment to Delete if someone really try hard to compulse me to do my homework. From [xtools Portal:Bob Dylan], we have:

#	User	Edits	min	maj	from	to	bytes
2	Moxy	11	9	2	2010-01-21 05:22	2011-01-05 06:09	1824
1	The Transhumanist	12	0	12	2018-04-11 11:16	2019-02-06 11:32	785
4	Dreamy Jazz	3	2	1	2018-05-25 21:25	2018-07-15 20:45	340
3	Northamerica1000	5	0	5	2011-11-19 21:43	2011-11-19 21:47	169
9	Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars	1	0	1	2019-01-12 02:26	2019-01-12 02:26	58
8	Legacypac	1	0	1	2019-04-12 13:04	2019-04-12 13:04	29
15	Bserin	1	0	1	2010-10-05 08:45	2010-10-05 08:45	25
13	Tadiranscopus	1	0	1	2011-12-27 12:10	2011-12-27 12:10	25
6	JLJ001	1	1	0	2018-05-27 21:58	2018-05-27 21:58	22
11	WOSlinker	1	0	1	2015-02-28 21:27	2015-02-28 21:27	6
7	Koavf	1	1	0	2010-09-01 02:56	2010-09-01 02:56	0
14	Bearcat	1	0	1	2011-12-06 11:09	2011-12-06 11:09	0
12	Sardanaphalus	1	0	1	2014-07-12 00:09	2014-07-12 00:09	0
10	Regi-Iris Stefanelli	1	0	1	2016-10-17 13:34	2016-10-17 13:34	0
5	Timrollpickering	1	1	0	2018-10-24 18:27	2018-10-24 18:27	0

Since I don't think that changing −- <center>((Purgepage))</center> -- into -- ((center|((purgepage)))) -- is really a major contribution, then all the people that could deserve a notification have already been advised. Moreover, A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day had the subliminal meaning: don't say keep, unless you step forward and become one of the maintainer of one of these un-maintained and un-visited portals. Pldx1 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Portal Bob Dylan as un-maintained and un-visited portal. With no prejudice toward the "too narrow topic" argument. Pldx1 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice chart. We know TTH's and Dreamy Jazz edits are almost always mass passes across hundreds or thousands of portals the meaningful edits are all from Moxy. Moxy suggested we delete these pages and specifically says he is not maintaining them. Legacypac (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All. Main article for each musician or band is a better place to provide links to other relevant articles. Page view statistics indicate that users do not find these portals useful (or know they exist). Creator supports their deletion. Oska (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep All - Enough of a mess already. This train is heading to limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all without prejudice to smaller, focused nominations based on the content available for the portals. The portals listed here are hugely different in both scope and history meaning this nomination was always going to be the trainwreck it is. The user who created the portals is entirely irrelevant to nearly every reason why a portal should be kept or deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, it has been well-established that nobody visits these pages. 15 page views/day is not worth the time it takes to maintain these pages. We have an encyclopedia to build. Leviv ich 05:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been well established that community consensus is that portals form part of the encyclopaedia. 15 views a days is significantly more views than some articles get - as just one example Gounou Gaya averages just 2 views per day. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an article such as Gounou Gaya is deleted that would probably remove encyclopedic (and referenced) information from the encyclopedia. That page is also linked from within the text of other articles (e.g. Nassour Guelendouksia Ouaido). Portal pages are usually a copy of the referenced content. DexDor ^(talk) 19:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete all. – Levivich 03:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Nominator is now under a ban. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: yes, this nomination is a bit messy. However, an individual musician does not satisfy the criterion of a "broad subject area". If they were all nominated in separate bundles, they'd all get deleted. SITH (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was heavily involved in the Bob Dylan Project a few years ago and upon returning recently, I learned Dylan's Portal may be deleted. I find this disappointing and may not be alone: I checked the history and found there were well over 1,000 views this past month, so it's not dormant in that sense. I understand there may be a problem with maintenance, and I'm willing to help in any way I can, short of higher end admin tasks. Also, I'm not sure what the issue is regarding the "scope" of portals tied to biographies, but it should be noted that hundreds of articles are associated with Dylan and that the main article is so extensive it falls short of being a central destination. Therein lies one of the problems: access. The main link to the Portal is buried under See Also, 18,000 words from the top, and the link above the "sister" articles is even more obscure. Better, I think, to provide a link somewhere else: at the top, in the infobox, in the Contents. Just suggesting. Allreet (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Dear User:Allreet, I haven't any doubt you were heavily involved in the WikiProject Bob Dylan ... some times ago. It remains that you never edited this specific Portal:Bob Dylan (see the analysis published just above), while the page views are not what you are saying: [wmflabs] attests 15 views per day, to be compared with 1,052 views per day for the Bob_Dylan_discography and 9,157 views per day for the Bob Dylan article itself. When TTH took, circa May 2018, the editorial decision to nuke the abandoned manual version of this portal then exactly nobody emitted a protest, and this for an obvious reason. Reverting to this abandoned version, with TWO articles, TWO songs and TWO pictures would only be a joke against our readers. Pldx1 (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For page views, I used https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Portal:Bob_Dylan which as of today yields 52 per day (1,086 in 20 days). This tool yields similar results for the other two pages you mentioned, so on that count, I'm a bit mystified as to the difference. In any case, I was trying to be helpful and was offering a comment objectively and I thought in good faith...and so I get your points, just not the tone. Allreet (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear User:Allreet. Thanks for publishing the request you used. When extending the observation period into [All the 90 last days], one can see the influence of the present MfD on the pageviews. As a result, you were totally right when not editing this portal that nobody looks at. Pldx1 (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without prejudice regarding individual nominations. Many of these certainly have sufficient scope to have portal in their own right. Other comments concerning the content of these portals are by definition content discussions not deletion discussions. WP:DEL-CONTENT is pretty clear in that regard. WaggersTALK 15:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 of these 25 are manual portals with subpages, which require ongoing maintenance. The other four ( P:Shania Twain, P:Avril Lavigne, P:The Supremes, P:Grateful Dead) have been converted to automated portals using the deprecated technique of drawing their article list from a single navbox, and should be reverted to a curated format.

WP:POG specifically warns that "Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create.".

But I have just checked each of these 25 portals, and not one of them has a current maintainer. Even in the 30 days that this nomination has been open, no maintainer has come forward for any of them ... even though these portals have all been prominently tagged with a deletion notice, and the relevant WikiProjects have been alerted through the alerts system.

So preserving these portals would be just preserving a set of rotting WP:REDUNDANTFORKs.

And WP:DEL-CONTENT doesn't apply, because it is all about content, whereas portals are just summarised content forks; the actual content remains in the articles.

But if Waggers does want to apply WP:DEL-CONTENT, he should read the first line "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". And we have an answer to that "if": editing cannot improve these pages, because editing requires an editor, and nobody has volunteered to do it.

And there is also WP:DEL-REASON #5: Content forks. If, as Waggers claims, these collections of subpages are actual content, then they are content forks, and can be deleted as such.

So there are both specific-guideline and broad policy reasons for deletion, and their creator is happy for them all to be deleted[3]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please close. It seems to me that there is a clear consensus here to delete all except Portal:Bob Dylan, Portal:Elvis Presley and Portal:The Beatles, and that those 3 would benefit from separate discussion. I will leave a note at WP:ANRFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure which discussion you're reading, but I don't see a clear consensus for anything either as a group or individually here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thryduulf, the first !vote is a keep for a few named portal, and delete the rest. The "keep" by Allreet applies only to one portal. That leaves a clear consensus to delete the rest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ignoring the arguments (which the closer will not be doing, I hope) and just counting noses I see: 4 !votes to keep all, 5 to delete all, 1 to keep Bob Dylan (with no clear opinion expressed about the rest) and 1 to Keep Elvis Presley and The Beatles but delete the rest. If we take that as 5 keep votes for each of the three named portals, 4 keep votes for the remainder and 5/6 votes to delete those not named that's not a clear consensus in favour of keeping or deleting any of them. When the strength of the arguments are considered a consensus may emerge regarding some or all of them, but as editors who have strong opinions neither you nor I are in a position to make a fair assessment of that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep this deletion discussion (as suggested above). Like other discussions where many portals are listed in one MfD, it ends up being harder to discern consensus. IMO, it's best if portals are nominated in smaller batches (when the portals have major connecting characteristics) or individually, so that each portal can be evaluated on their own individual and specific nature. This vote isn't saying that I want to keep or delete these portals. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC) striked by Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All. These portals are largely abandoned, and only degrading the integrity of the main articles (a reader reaching them will get the impression WP is dying; clearly so in some cases). None of them give much beyond the band's main article+naxbox and a couple of random bits of information. If the WP community was 10x its current editing power, and had enthusiasts who wanted to actively manage a band portal page, then these would make sense. But we don't have that, and we seem to be advocating a WP that never seems to have existed (and may never do so; however, if things change, they can always be re-activated). We should not be afraid of the creative destruction cycle, where things that don't work get removed, and things that do work get supported. That is why the Encylopedia Britannica is not the world's largest online encyclopedia, and WP is. We should not be afraid/nostalgic/inertial of this – we should embrace it. Britishfinance (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Alabay (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Having gotten involved in several MfD's of portals (and read through BHG's main threads), I am only beginning to realize the enormous scale of this problem, and the negative effect of these abandoned portals on the integrity of WP's main articles+navboxes in the eyes of our readers (notwithstanding that a high proportion of these portals are simply an out-of-date cut-and-paste of the main article+navbox; and in some cases the main article is itself out-of-date and/or tagged for issues and in desperate need of scarce editing resources).

Some of the support for abandoned portals is like Japanese holdouts after WW2. The more correct analogy is a holdout who left their island shortly after their posting, went to another country, got married and had kids, but ten years later when a ship appeared off the island, they ran back, put on the uniform, and starting waving a samurai sword on the beach. Britishfinance (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - User:UnitedStatesian - You asked, last month, in this stalled MFD: '15 a day? [Pageviews of Portal:The Beatles. That has to be the busiest portal other than Portal:Current events. I'm serious, is there one that gets more page views than that? ' Yes, there are busier portals, both that have been nominated and that have not been nominated. Try Portal:Christianity at 119 daily pageviews, and Portal:Germany at 104 daily pageviews. Try Portal:Time at 45 daily pageviews and Portal:Cold War at 34 daily pageviews. Of course, the head articles have pageviews in the thousands. So there are more-accessed portals, although not much more accessed, and not comparable to the accesses of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A further thought that I had on the Santana Portal MfD; how are WP band portals going to compete with Facebook-band portals. While it might have seemed possible a decade ago, there is no way a fan is going to start supporting a WP-band portal when they have a much better platform with a Facebook-band portal (and linked to WP for content). In this regard, not only do WP-band portals not have much of a history, but I cannot see how they can have a future either? We should stick to what we can be distinctive, and avoid competing with Facebook? Britishfinance (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following table shows the average daily pageviews of the portals and the lead articles for the period of 1 January 2019 to 28 February 2019, and the ratio, and the percent (the reciprocal of the ratio). The table shows these metrics for the 25 Moxy portals (listed on 12 April and relisted on 24 May), the Adele portal (renominated on 24 May), and 4 portals that were nominated on 18 May.

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Ratio	Notes	Percent
Eminem	13	19,275	1482.7		0.07%
Rihanna	16	14,713	919.6		0.11%
Taylor Swift	9	17,722	1969.1		0.05%
The Clash	7	2,407	343.9		0.29%
Adele	14	7,403	528.8	Second nomination	0.19%
Justin Bieber	18	18,943	1052.4	Did something happen on 8 Feb? Accesses peak then.	0.10%
Rush	9	3,334	370.4		0.27%
Neil Young	8	5,806	725.8		0.14%
Pink Floyd	13	8,655	665.8		0.15%
The Rolling Stones	9	7,314	812.7		0.12%
Led Zeppelin	14	8,103	578.8		0.17%
Michael Jackson	24	28,527	1188.6		0.08%
The Jackson Family	85	3,956	46.5		2.15%
Janet Jackson	7	5,926	846.6		0.12%
Shania Twain	12	4,927	410.6	Median 8. Portal access has weird peak 6 Jan.	0.24%
Frank Zappa	8	4,201	525.1		0.19%
Aerosmith	10	3,224	322.4		0.31%
Avril Lavigne	9	10,197	1133.0	Peak on 15 Feb in article access.	0.09%
Queen (band)	50	59,785	1195.7	Article and portal accesses peak on 25 Feb.	0.08%
Bob Dylan	15	9,373	624.9		0.16%
The Supremes	7	2,437	348.1		0.29%
The Beatles	15	14,088	939.2		0.11%
U2	9	3,993	443.7		0.23%
Grateful Dead	23	2,898	126.0		0.79%
Iron Maiden	11	3,877	352.5		0.28%
The Kinks	8	1,987	248.4		0.40%
Elvis Presley	12	24,375	2031.3		0.05%
Miles Davis	7	3,603	514.7		0.19%
Whitney Houston	7	12,726	1818.0		0.06%
AC/DC	10	7,542	754.2		0.13%

As can be seen, no article has fewer than 1900 daily pageviews. No portal has more than 85 daily pageviews, and only two portals have more than 25 daily pageviews. There are surprises, such as that Queen is the most frequently accessed portal and second most frequently accessed article (but this may have been associated with a recent movie), and that the Jackson Family had high portal access, while its most famous member, Michael Jackson, had (expectedly) high article access. The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and Bob Dylan do not have high rates of portal views. This confirms two related conclusions. First, portals, in general, have very low rates of access. Second, any a priori statement that a subject is a "broad subject area" and will sustain a portal can be shown a posteriori to be incorrect for individual performers. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

add your keep/delete/comment here

• Delete All except Portal:Queen (band) and Portal:The Jackson Family. These portals are not attracting sufficient numbers of readers. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Portal:Michael Jackson and Portal:Janet Jackson may be merged to Portal:The Jackson Family if it is kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for Portal:Queen (band) and Portal:The Jackson Family but only if the portals are maintained . Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Robert McClenon: Portal:The Jackson Family is not being maintained. See Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:The Jackson Family: it has only 14 topics, all created in 2010. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the whole set - (I have already !voted delete for some of them, only commented for the others). The pitiful state of these abandoned things can be summarized by the Portal:Bob Dylan. The code of this portal says:

((Random portal component |max=2|header=Selected article| subpage=Selected article))

((Random portal component |max=2|header=Selected album| subpage=Selected album))

((Random portal component |max=2|header=Selected song| subpage=Selected song))

((Random portal component |max=2|header=Selected picture| subpage=Selected picture))

In face of this reality, saying Many of these [singers] certainly have sufficient scope to have portal in their own right is nothing but repeating ad nauseam the same fallacy. "There could have been a portal", is not a proof of "we have a portal". In fact, the larger is the ocean, the more ridiculous is presenting two abandoned wooden boards as an elaborate navigation tool. And one month at MfD has proven beyond any doubt that no one has any intent to step forward and start working at these abandoned drafts. Stop luring the readers ! Pldx1 (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per arguments made by others above. Portal:The Jackson Family currently begins "Introduction - show another Template:Brandon Jackson". Where "show another" links to a page saying "Purge this page - Clear the cache of this page?" and the template link is a redlink - we shouldn't be luring any readers away from the main article to such a mess. DexDor ^(talk) 05:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I further emphasise my Delete All vote above; band portals have no future in WP as facebook (and others) is clearly a better platform for such things (i.e. there is a reason why all these WP band portals are abandoned and only leading to the impression that WP is abandoned). Britishfinance (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Portal:Queen (band) was moved to Portal:Queen following discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_18#Portal:Queen --kingboyk (talk) 17:27, 2 June 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.