Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Backstreet Boys

 __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, userfy to User:Krystaleen/Portal:Backstreet Boys. User:Krystaleen mentioned that it's not needed given she made a PDF, but that is subpar and moving the subpages isn't too bad so I'll take care of it anyway. If you nevertheless still want it deleted, just let me know ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 11:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Backstreet Boys


Narrow topic (single band), duplicates navbox, rarely used. Redundant to head article Backstreet Boys, which gets 916 times as many pageviews.

This portal was created in June 2012, and was converted to an automated format in September 2018‎.

The reason for its conversion is clear: it was not being maintained. The last version before conversion is dated 12 August 2018, and its "In the news" section consist of items from 2013 and earlier. The reason is clear enough: the list is at, which eas only ever update by the portals' creator @Krystaleen, who evidently moved onto other interests — as any editor is fully entitled to do — and nobody else took over the task.

That lack of maintenance is common problem with narrow topic portals. It was so widespread that in early 2018 the RFC at WP:ENDPORTALS showed widepread support for deleting every portal. In the end the RFC consensus was not to delete every last one of them, and some editors at WP:WPPORT decided without testing community support that automation was the solution.

However, while automation removed the outdated listings, it didn't create a worthwhile portal. The automated portal draw its article list solely from a single navbox. This makes the portals merely a fork of the navbox, with much less utility than the navbox because:
 * the navbox displays a full list of the articles, but the portal displays only one page at a time.
 * the navbox should be present on every page in the set. The portal always requires navigation to a separate page.
 * The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes:
 * both the topic navbox and any related navboxes
 * A full summary of the topic rather than an excerpt of the lede.

The evidence is very clear that readers simply don't want this portal. In the first 3 months of 2019, the portal got 831 pageviews, while the head article got 761,139 pageviews. That's 916 times as many views for the head article ... or put the other way around, the portal got only 0.109% of the pagviews of the head article.

In the first 3 months of last year (2018) the figures were Portal: 1032 pageviews, and head article 441,000. So automation hasn't attracted readers. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete like the other bands and singers. Legacypac (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete yes I wouldn't mind this deleted. However is it possible to archive it under my account? Would I need to manually copy and paste or is there an easier way? No big deal but since I spent many many hours on it, it would be nice if I could have a copy.--Krystaleen 15:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , this seems to fit WP:USERFY, so in principle I hope that would be done as you request.  However, note this comment by, which suggests that the moved portal would break.  So you may find that it took a lot of effort to make it work in userspace. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What you built is on the unused subpages right? So you would need to move the subpages and reconstruct the portal in userspace which may prove difficult. The single page autoerror generating ones can be copied over it looks like. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, to make things simpler I just decided to save a PDF copy of this. Non functional but it's ok. You can go ahead and delete the portal now. Thank you.--Krystaleen 05:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - A single band's scope is too small to require the use of a portal to help navigate and organize its related topics. The navbox does that fine and is already on all the articles. This auto navbox portal also provides no added value over the main article. Same argument as all the others... Meszzy2  (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Userfy as per request. If User:Krystaleen can't get the portal working, she can always G7 it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Userfy as per explicit request (obviously with the subpages). Old portal, 40 subpages, created 2012-06-30 04:31:34 by User:Krystaleen. Pldx1 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Miscellany for deletion/Band Portals refently closed discussion on similar topics Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 13 April 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.