Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:1970s

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal:1970s

 * – (View MfD)

Stillborn portal.

Two selected articles. One unillustrated C-class entry created in May 2018, and one in April 2019.

One selected bio created in May 2018, which uses a transclude template.

See also: WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:2000s Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, per WP:TNT, and per the fact there is no good reason to keep portals that are in this state. Relatively low page views (66/day, compared to 704/day for 1970s) and the state it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. Portals are not content, so any comparison to how broken articles are handled would be improper. The downgrading of POG cuts both ways - there is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as a well-viewed but stillborn portal.
 * I count 67 average daily pageviews, which is better than most portals but not as good as most articles, as opposed to 840 for the article.
 * As noted, the portal only has three articles, and no designated maintainer, and so no reason to expect expansion in the near future or medium future.
 * Since the Portal Guidelines have been downgraded to the status of an information page and we have no real portal guidelines, we should use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense.  A portal that is not actively being maintained (preferably by at least two editors to provide backup) does not provide current value.  A portal that has only a small set of articles does not serve any purpose as a navigation tool and is not consistent with a broad subject area.
 * Note on backlinks. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if this discussion is closed as delete, I propose that the backlinks should be removed.  I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries, but in this case I see no suitable alternative. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PS Note that the there are only 903 links to this portal from aticles, but 8,696 links from category pages. This is almost entirely due to my creation and deployment of Module:FindYDCportal, which is used via category header templates on nearly 150,000 pages. That is why we have the slightly above-average viewing rate noted by @Robert McClenon.
 * Note that Module:FindYDCportal uses an if-exists test, so it will stop creating links to Portal:1970s if the portal is deleted. So all but a v few of the category-space backlinks will disappear without needing any edits.-- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I don't think that this affects the final result.  Any further explanation can go on my talk page, since it doesn't affect this portal.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't affect the outcome. It's just a little background. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator, who correctly describes the portal as stillborn. I am unpersuaded that any of the 8 remaining decade portals add any value over the excellent head articles on decades; as far as I can see, they are all simply a set of makework Rube Goldberg machines of far less utility than the head articles ... but this one doesn't even try to add value. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.