Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Music of Australia

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [confabulate] || 01:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Music of Australia

 * – (View MfD)

Portal created in 2007 and essentially abandoned since shortly after being promoted to "featured" in 2008. Prominently advertises hit lists of 2009 as if they were from today: "The number-one Australian single in Australia in 2009 is" etc. Nemo 15:13, 30 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:Music + Portal:Australia), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Intersection portal (Portal:Music ∩ Portal:Australia). Subportals based in Intersections are per se a narrow topic. Expanding a subportal based on an Intersection topic is to include redundant material with both parent portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as a little-viewed portal, which had 11 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019. The head article had 223 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, which is usually not enough for a portal.  Editors don't want to read about music of Australia, because they want to read about specific Australian performers, songs, and styles.  *Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Music_of_Australia shows 50 articles, which is more than most portals show, but they are the usual content forks, 16 images, DYKs, and other subpages.  The articles were created in 2007 and 2008; spot-checking shows that they have been tweaked, but often in 2013 through 2016.
 * Since the Portal Guidelines have been downgraded to the status of an information page and we have no real portal guidelines, we should 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.  This 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 articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad); (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 maintainers, at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained.  Any portal that does not pass this common-sense test is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.  Even if the portal has had some maintenance, which does not appear to be the case, there is little viewing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, and per the fact there is no good reason to keep portals that are in this state. Low page views and the condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. Portals are not content, so any comparison to how broken articles are handled would be improper. The downgrading of POG cuts both ways - there is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. 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. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, mainly Guilherme Burn.--Darwinek (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another narrow-topic portal, abandoned since shortly after its creation. Its narrow scope means no surprise that it has failed to attract either readers or maintainers.
 * A set of abandoned, outdated content forks does no favours to readers, who would be much better served by visiting the B-class head article Music of Australia. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 3 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.