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: No consensus to delete, default to keep. — xaosfluxTalk 21:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
260 pageviews vs 71,400+ pageviews in 30 days shows how little value readers find in this portal compared to the head article which is actually a better portal for this topic - a single TV show. Portal has existed since 2006 and is maintained so it has had plenty of time to build readership. Time to cancel the article spinoff the audience rejected. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Page views are not a rationale for deletion. This is an extremely popular and long-running show in the UK, which has won many awards. There is plenty of Wikipedia coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed. This portal acts as a good introduction to the topic and to its coverage on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Popularity of a TV show is not a rationale for a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old portal, 24 subpages, created 2006-09-22 20:41:50 by User:AnemoneProjectors. There is plenty of Wikipedia coverage is yet another series of weasel words. This portal only directs to FOUR characters and THREE episodes, while pretending being some useful navigation tool. Stop joking. Portal:EastEnders. Pldx1 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Legacypac has a useful point, which is that the portal has not built an audience in thirteen years, and probably never will. Of course, the page view metrics about other portals do not give much support to portals in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the creator and maintainer of this portal. I don't feel I can !vote in this as I'm involved and but I've occasionally questioned the usefulness of this portal and was frustrated by how out-of-date it had become, so I tried to get a few people on board to help update it and although they agreed, nothing was done. Then last year I gave it a revamp, copying what I had seen on another portal. This meant it would not get so out-of-date and would need less updating. The portal is not well promoted, only being linked in articles via Template:EastEnders, and also in category pages, so if page views are a problem this could be something to do with it, as could the fact that it was out-of-date for so long and does not have regular updates. It could be down to the fact that I have a lot less time available for Wikipedia now than I used to and EastEnders articles are severely lacking in dedicated editors. However, I will accept the result of this MFD either way. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 15:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. You are welcome. Pldx1 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean I'm welcome to vote? I know that but actually, I'll leave it to others because I don't have an argument for or against, so I'll just leave you with my statement above. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 17:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't vote for its retention then all your efforts will be deleted. Rillington (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, pending a wider consensus on which portals should be kept. The nominator's description of the portal is accurate as far as it goes, but doesn't identify the key issue with this portal, which is @Pldx1's point that it has a tiny range of subtopics.
In this case, the extra info enhances the case for deletion, but it also enhances the pattern of the nominator making rushed nominations which don't properly examine the portal. How long does it take view the source code and to type Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:EastEnders?
This portal is not actually broken. Despite its limited scope, the lack of actual brokenness puts it way ahead of most old-style portals. And the limited pageviews are a problem common to nearly all portals.
The last month of cleanup MFDs has been an important process of getting rid of the recent influx of junk, and some old perma-broken portals. But with that process nearing completion, Legacypac appears to be moving onto MFDing much older, non-broken portals which really fall into the scope of issues which should be decided at RFC. I am also increasingly concerned that despite picking off these portals one at a time, Legacypac's nominations are too often inaccurate and remain uncorrected even when specific inaccuracies are identified, and in most cases they give a grossly inadequate account of the portal. Time for a halt. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Get lost troll. My nomination is fine. Legacypac (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt is coming to me - When someone says There is plenty of Wikipedia coverage, this is easily parsed as "there is a basis for someone else to do the job", not so convincing. When someone says "I will maintain", the AGF mantra pushes to "OK, let us try" (I am not convinced in advance, but this is another story). Pldx1 (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC) no more doubt now, confirm delete Pldx1 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A portal on a single television show, no matter how popular that show, does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I said I wouldn't !vote on this, I agree with those who said low page views are a common problem for all portals and I believe there should be a wider consensus on portals in general, like User:BrownHairedGirl suggested. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 12:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page views are not a deletion rationale. There are a significant number of related articles so this is a good candidate for a portal. Might need some work due to the method of creation, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. WaggersTALK 11:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The question is not good or bad candidacy, but good or bad navigation tool, since this is the alleged usefulness of a portal. Having only FOUR characters and THREE episodes, after 13 years of existence, and 15 days after this remark has been done, at the beginning of this MfD, is a deletion rationale. While "there are a significant number of keep !voters who will do the job" would be a keep rationale. But there are... none. Pldx1 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has 3113 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 2019, but the portal has 8 daily pageviews, which is less than the average portal at 13 daily pageviews. Pageviews are so a deletion rationale, because the portal guidelines say that portals should be broad subject areas that attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Even if this portal is maintained, it is not being viewed much. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is it time for a close, or for a Relist? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 26 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.