Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:James Bond

 __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) 00:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:James Bond

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected portal.

Twenty-one selected articles from March 2008, two from July 2009, one from April 2010, 11 from August / September / November 2011, and three from June 2012. No entries have been updated since their creation. Entries after 2010 lack even gnome-ish edits.

Thirteen selected articles from 2008, one selected bio from December 2011, two from June 2012. Only one of the 13 oldest were updated after 2008.


 * Errors
 * Daniel Craig reprised Bond in the 2015 film Spectre


 * The entry for Deborah Kerr, Garbage (band), Sean Bean and Jonathan Pryce assume the reader knows which of the listed films are Bond films


 * The entry for Tina Turner does not mention her minor connection to James Bond, nor does the current lede on her article.


 * George Martin died in 2016.

Mark Schierbecker (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of the selections, including the ones for Louis Armstrong, Paul McCartney and Madonna, overstate the importance of their one-time Bond soundstracks compared to their great body of work.
 * Weak Delete as per analysis by User:Mark Schierbecker. This portal, unlike many portals that are nominated for deletion, has more than enough articles, but the articles have not been maintained.  This is a well-viewed portal, as portals go, at 58 daily pageviews; the head article has 4059.  However, what is being viewed is at best old, at risk of being wrong, and at worst either obsolete or wrong, a risk that is largely the result of the use of content-forked subpages, which are a failed concept.   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, and including a maintenance plan (since lack of maintenance is a problem with most portals), can go to Deletion Review.   Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This junk portal has been abandoned for over seven years. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Sir Jimmy, who dumped it in June 2005 less then 48 hours after creation and left Wikipedia in Sep. 2007. While this portal pre-dates this stipulation of POG, the long-term point remains the same: this is a portal that should not exist. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has had over seven years of no steady maintainers and it had a low 58 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article James Bond had 4,059 views per day in the same period). This is a dramatic long-term decline from the 125 views per day it had from July 1 to Dec. 30 2015.
 * POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but WikiProject James Bond has been labeled inactive since 2018 (the last editor to editor conversation was in July 2014), and the portal was last mentioned on the talk page in Oct. 2009. 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 seven years of hard evidence shows James Bond is not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, and oppose re-creation. Narrow topic + near-zero maintenance = clear fail of the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 05:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note on backlinks. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if this discussion is closed as delete, I suggest that the backlinks 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 portals. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 05:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * {dup struck) Delete, and oppose re-creation. Low readership + almost no maintenance = clear fail of the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment @ Brown HairedGirl  You accidently voted twice at this MfD. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ooops! thanks, @Newshunter12. Duplicate now struck. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:45, 13 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.