Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Gilbert and Sullivan

 __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. MER-C 10:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Gilbert and Sullivan


Delete Fails the breadth-of-subject-matter requirements of the WP:POG guideline; just 504 articles in scope. Can be more than adequately covered in Portal:Comedy and Portal:Theatre. WikiProject has been talkpage notified. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This portal has been abandoned for over a decade, save for a few DYK's added in 2010 and some one-off updates by a passing editor in 2018. WP:DYK states: "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section"... but this nine and ten-year-old set has nothing to do with new or expanded articles, so its only effect is as a WP:TRIVIA section.
 * The portal clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over a decade of no steady maintainers and it had an abysmal 8 views per day from Jan-Jun 2019. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as over decade of hard evidence shows Gilbert and Sullivan is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as per analysis by User:Newshunter12. Plenty of articles, but no maintenance to the articles in nine years except tweaks.  I still don't know why another portal is mentioned in an MFD, because I don't see a plan to maintain hierarchical portals, and I still haven't seen what the main value of portals is.   There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems.  Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a abandoned mini-portal, whose selected articles are plentiful but outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago.
 * WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This fails on at least two of the three counts:
 * Broad topic . No. The total of ~500 articles could be accommodated in a handful navboxes, which would provide better navigation without luring readers to a standalone page
 * High readership . Clear fail. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 8 views per day is trivially low.
 * Lots of of maintainers . Clear fail. Long-term abandonment.
 * I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

So, I think you are right: Portal:Opera is the best target, followed by Portal:Musical theatre. I could easily do both Portal:Opera and Portal:Musical theatre. Any thoughts on whether to use one of the other or both? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. If you close this as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks?  I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Music), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would think that the next portal up for Gilbert and Sullivan would usually be Portal:Theatre. Maybe Portal:Opera? bd2412  T 10:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * G&S is usually classed as light opera, or "English comic opera", specifically as the sui generis Savoy opera. I had regarded that as a sorta halfway house between musical theatre and opera, but I see that Savoy opera is categorised in Category:Opera genres, and that G&S's works as are categorised in Category:Operas by genre‎ →Category:English comic operas‎→Category:Operas by Gilbert and Sullivan.
 * Between the two, I would go with Opera, but I am wondering why there are two different portals for these fairly close topics. I guess if both are well maintained, that is reasonable. bd2412  T 23:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll go with Opera, if the outcome is delete. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Topic is too narrow to warrant a portal. SD0001 (talk) 15:10, 30 August 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.