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) 02:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Buffy the Vampire Slayer[edit]

A first-draft manual portal abandoned for 13 years, then turned into a single-navbox-based automated portal.

The current version[1] of this portal is an automated one, drawing its article list solely from the navbox Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That makes it a redundant fork of the navbox, and there is a clear community consensus to delete portals built this way. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

However, this portal was not included in the mass deletions because it has a prior history. It was created[2] in January 2006‎ Binthemix (talk · contribs) as a manual portal with subpages, and in January 2019‎ converted[3] by @The Transhumanist (TTH) to automated format.

I can see why TTH automated it, because the manual version (see e.g. the 17 November 2018‎ version[4]) was just a long-abandoned static page with one of everything. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Buffy the Vampire Slayer shows:

one /Selected Episode, bacically unchanged from 2006
one /news page, unchanged since 2006 except for a spam link added in 2011 and promptly reverted
one /Featured topic, also basically unchanged since 2006
one /Selected article, again basically unchanged since 2006
one /Quotes pages, also basically unchanged since 2006

The result is just a single static, outdated page, with neither navigational aids nor effective content-sampling. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" ... but this abandoned relic-turn-automated-fork offers no enhancement over the head article Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". The breadth of this topic depends on how you look at it. From one angle it is just a single Film/TV series media franchise, but from another angle it is lots and lots of articles. It hasn't got had the maintainers, and it hasn't had the pageviews (in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 7 views per day, barely half the abysmal median of 12 per day for all portals).

But there's no broad consensus on where to draw the lines around broadness, so I propose that this portal and its subpages be deleted per WP:TNT without prejudice to recreating a curated portal, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note previous discussion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Buffy the Vampire Slayer, in 2009, when the nominator noted that the page had been "under construction" for 3 years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
- - There are two versions, a heritage portal that has been abandoned for thirteen years and a robotic version, neither of them adding value.
  - The images do not include an eponymous image (whether of Gellar or anyone else as Buffy). What is the point of a story with a heroine without an image of the heroine?
  - Prefer a deletion with prejudice, but the closer can decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Personally I define broadness around wikicoverage. Everything else is basically opinion and there's been a lot of I Don't Like It arguments levelled at television shows. The deletion rationale could lead to the deletion of almost anything (association football, say). All I can say is, this is a topic I know about. There continues to be very wide interest in Buffy among both fans & academia. There are articles on all, or nearly all, episodes. There are plenty of apparently free images of Sarah Michelle Gellar in her article. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @EA, regardless of your views on how to define broadness, this is explicitly a proposal to delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice to re-creation. So that is not the question which is being decided here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. However, the closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Beyoncé, a discussion that I did not contribute towards because of a lack of interest in/knowledge of the topic – and in particular the closure rationale being applied as a deletion rationale to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amiga – makes us both a problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not useful to readers. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 14:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Adds nothing to the Encyclopedia that isn't available from the main article and this is not a broad subject.--Phospheros (talk) 19:17, 8 May 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.