Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indian classical music (2nd nomination)

 __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) 05:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Indian classical music

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected still-born portal. Portal was speedy kept at MfD in 2011 when portal standards were impossibly low.

One never-updated selected article created in December 2009. One created in December 2009 and updated in November 2011. Three never-updated articles created in November 2011.

Eight never-updated selected bios created in November 2009. One created in November 2009 and partially updated in April 2013. Four blurbs are one or two sentences. Promotional edits to one entry in March 2012 were incorporated by an experienced editor and remained live until an IP removed them in April 2013. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion 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:India + Portal:Music), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator User:Mark Schierbecker. The portal had an average of 15 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, as opposed to 532 for the head article.
 * The previous MFD in 2011 is informative. As was sometimes the case, User:TenPoundHammer was right, and was dismissed because he was ahead of his time in not seeing mystical value in portals.  As is sometimes the case, User:Northamerica1000 said that they had improved the portal.  One "improvement" that they made was to add 41 empty stubs for additional biographies that have not been added.  (Have the empty biographical slots been Waiting for Godot?)
 * The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore 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.  It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers.  (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.)  Common sense imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense:  (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies).  Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable.  Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
 * There may be a systemic bias against coverage of Indian classical music in favor of European classical music, but maintenance of a portal is a distraction for subject-matter qualified editors from the creation of articles.
 * Still not a good common sense case for this portal with low readership and very little maintenance. Delete it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per my previous MFD in 2011. It was given a chance when it was new, and nothing has happened in the intervening years. At least it's categorized now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete we only need one classical music portal.Catfurball (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Main article + Navbox + WProject are much better (and non forked) options. No need for a forked abandoned portal. Britishfinance (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I created this portal, but I have not had help from Indian rasikas, though I participate in India project. --Opus88888 (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, per the delete votes above, and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the poor condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, like an article is, since they are for navigation instead. It is therefore improper to use rationales meant for keeping articles to argue that this failed navigation device should be kept. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised or done at the last minute just to stave off deletion. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. The community's consensus not to delete all portals is not a consensus to keep all portals; instead they are to be evaluated individually, as is being done here. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve old and inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. I support replacement of links rather than redirection, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:04, 27 October 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.