Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nickelodeon (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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Portal:Nickelodeon

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Nominated by in an edit request at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. The rationale provided by the nominator (copied from that request) follows:

&#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 19:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The nominator hits all the nails on their respective heads. Note: the first MfD nomination was eight years ago. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * UnitedStatesian Also worth noting that the first nomination was the editor who created most of the content asking for it to be deleted because no one was helping them maintain it. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Archive, and move to a subpage of WikiProject Television/Nickelodeon task force: None of this is a reason to delete, but is a reason to archive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely agree with the nom here. I see no value in keeping it, even as an archive. Regarding moving it as an archive of the task force, as one of the main editors that cleaned up the task force mergers last year, including this one, I can safely say that most of those task forces were not inactive, but completely dead, and for years, including this one. The cleanup took hours to do because of all the sub-pages that projects create automatically and serve no archival value. We should stop sending stuff no one cares about to archive instead of to its rightful place, the shredder. Gonnym (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: This is an old-style portal with subpages that are old static copies of portions of selected articles.  It is in better condition than many such portals (although many of the low-quality portals were deleted in 2019).  The nominator has done an excellent job of summarizing the state of the portal.
 * In calendar 2020, the portal had an average of 29 daily pageviews, while the lead article had an average of 3657 daily pageviews. In calendar 2019, the portal had an average of 22 daily pageviews, and the lead article had an average of 3284 daily pageviews.  The portal is not providing significant functionality to viewers.  Besides, the portal provides an overview of Nickelodeon in about 2014, not in about 2021, due to the lack of maintenance.
 * The portal presents subpages that are static copies of the previous content of articles, which is prone to data rot. This design has been seen in the past to result in BLP errors when the portal content is largely about living persons, such as directors, animators, and actors.  This portal content is largely about living persons.  This design makes the lack of a portal maintainer even more of a problem than with a more modern design using transclusion.
 * The portal is in "relatively good" condition for an unmaintained portal with a flawed design. That doesn't make it useful, and it is prone to data rot.
 * Why archive something whose design was flawed in 2010 and in 2014?
 * Delete Extremely moribund portal that never got off the ground. Content is horrendously out of date and not being maintained. IP's reasons are spot on. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:52, 8 July 2021 (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.