Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:King Arthur

 __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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:King Arthur

 * – (View MfD)

Stillborn portal. Twelve selected articles and 10 selected bios created in August 2007. No updates. Relatively orphaned for a portal (less than 150 article backlinks). Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. No maintenance.  Portal had 11 average daily pageviews in Jan19-Jun19, as opposed to 5334 for head article.   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) 15:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not appropriate for you to support deletion and then advise recourse at DRV. if there is *any* cause to think there is procedural failure at play, raise it here and now. You may need to read WP:DRVPURPOSE. DRV is not a standard step for re-creations. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe - I did read DRV Purpose yet again, as I did earlier when User:BrownHairedGirl agreed with me. See "Deletion Review may be used" (3) "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page".  That often has to do with new news about a subject, but it also can refer to a proposed new design for a portal that would justify a new version of the portal when the old version failed.  It then says that editors may recommend to "Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation."  While DRV is normally used to reverse a procedural error in the XFD, it is also available as a review check against frivolous re-creation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a prospect of significant new information? I think not, but if you do, you should bring to this anticipated significant new information.  And if it does happen post-close, the first step is to raise it with the deleting admin.
 * If further down the track, there is new information that overcomes the XfD reason for deletion, then any editor in good standing may re-create it without going through DRV, and going straight to DRV is discouraged in favour of talking to the deleting admin followed by WP:REFUND. This normally applies to articles deleted at AfD where new information is new sources that meet WP:THREE, I really don’t see the applicability here.
 * Frivolous re-creations are re-deleted per WP:CSD#G4. WP:BLOCKing can also come into play.
 * By openly pointing to DRV, you are undermining the standing of the MfD, suggesting that post MfD there is another round of appeal. That is not the purpose of DRV.  Decisions here should be considered final, for the purpose of the discussion here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade. 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 Fl1942, who dumped it less then 24-hours after creating it and left Wikipedia the same month, August 2007. 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 a decade of no steady maintainers and it had an abysmal 11 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article King Arthur had 5,334 views per day in the same period). This is a steady long-term decline from the 20 views per day it had from July 1 to Dec. 30 2015. The selected pictures sub-page has been blank and untouched since creation in August 2007.
 * POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but WikiProject King Arthur is inactive (the last editor to editor conversation was in July 2010), and the portal has never been mentioned on the talk page, is not listed at all the main page, and is not listed as part of the project on the portal's talk page. 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 a decade of hard evidence shows King Arthur is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:37, 8 September 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:England + Portal:History), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails as a navigation aid.  Has POV issues, should not be reader facing.  If anyone cared to keep it for historical records, I would support moving it to WikiProject King Arthur/Portal, however, I suspect no one does.  There is zero prospect for recreation with improvements, the portal model does not work for narrowly defined topics, at best only the top 10-100 portals have merit.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this worthless portal forever.Catfurball (talk) 19:42, 11 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.