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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Friends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old line portal about the TV show. The only articles in the category tree in this topic are on the characters and lists of episodes. The article has links to this content anyway. Individual TV shows should not have portals. Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:POG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon further consideration, I have struck my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepComment. I don't see the deletion rationale here, beyond 'I don't like it'. This is a very popular piece of television. The top-level article is a GA. The actors were strongly associated with it, and some have well-developed articles. There are articles on some individual episodes, some of which are high quality eg (picked at random from the template) "The One with the Embryos". There is a taskforce devoted to the topic, though it seems inactive. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Instead of the same editor going around to every portal article there is and either nominating it for deletion or replacing portal articles with a redirect, can we just form a consensus somewhere about portal articles and why they should or should not exist?  This one doesn't get that many views per day anymore.  Is it only those with low number of people noticing them getting eliminated in this round? Dream Focus 03:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dream Focus: I don't think you meant to type "every portal article there is". UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you rather me say 99% of all portals? Join the discussion at [1] or wherever else its being had. A search for Miscellany_for_deletion and "portal"[2] shows 2,402 results. Add in the year 2019 and only 827 listed. So a lot are being deleted constantly, just like the great purges of them in the past. Dream Focus 21:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a bad portal (a lot better than most new portals), although the "seasons" box should probably be in order instead of random. Many TV shows are their own fictional universes, and are large enough for portals (an obvious example is Doctor Who). —Kusma (t·c) 07:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's of course a judgement call by the community as to whether the topic of Friends is broad enough to be consistent with what WP:POG requires (and which is a separate requirement from the count of related articles needed to support the portal), but my judgement says no. If you asked me for an example of one that fell on the sufficient-breadth-of-topic side, my judgement would be Portal:The Simpsons (if that's at all helpful); while !voting delete here, I don't subscribe to the more general rule stated by the nominator in his nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Replying to User:Espresso Addict - I don't see the keep rationale, other than "This is a very popular piece of television". If any one TV show of the silver age of television needed a portal, it would be this one, with a long run of episodes and multiple stars. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Processes default to keep, if there's no harm involved. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment' - Yes. Espresso Addict and I respectfully disagree. They have a reasoned position on this portal, which is more than I can say for most of the Keep arguments for most of the portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Replying to User:Dream Focus - Yes. I would like to see a Request for Comments about portals. But in the meantime, we have a procedure for dealing with them one at a time. If portal advocates don't like the fact that most of the portals are being deleted, that is a reason for them to publish an RFC to establish a modern consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Historical note. It appears that there was a malformed or empty version of the portal more than a decade ago that was deleted, which is irrelevant to this discussion, but that is why this is a second nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it meets WP:POG then keep it. No rule against individual TV shows having portals. Dream Focus 20:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Friends task force is inactive. Last post was 3 years ago asking if it was inactive and getting no reply. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I have struck my Delete !vote. I still don't see the keep rationale, but I don't see the need to delete either. If TV shows from the silver age of television are suitable subjects for portals, this one is. A few contentious heritage portals should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Old portal, 58 subpages, created 2011-10-27 09:52:01 by User:ScriptDoctor. This is surely not a a very popular piece of portal. See [wmflabs], 8 views per day, half of the views of Portal:Ancient Tamil civilization, which itself is not such an hit-parade. Moreover, arguing about a broad encyclopedic topic for a portal displaying a great total of 6 articles, 3 episodes and 3 pictures seems to be a joke. Pldx1 (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pldx, too narrow of a topic for a portal, and nobody is using it. Leviv ich 05:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Abandoned, woefully incomplete, portal on a narrow topic (single TV show), which fails the WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

It is so grossly incomplete that it provides a useless overview of the subject. See Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Friends: only 3 selected episodes, and 6 selected articles; Portal:Friends/Main Characters is just 6 links. The selected article pages were all created in 2011, since when they have all had either no edits or a few minor edits. This has been abandoned for 8 years.

The head article Friends is a massively better navigational hub. It has three comprehensive navboxes, an fine infobox, a list of characters, etc etc. The portal is just a badly-designed, underdeveloped, abandoned WP:REDUNDANTFORK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 26 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.