Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pop music

 __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:  keep. signed,Rosguill talk 08:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Portal:Pop music

 * – (View MfD)

Underviewed, underdeveloped, and undermaintained portal about a narrow topic (music subgenre). It presents wrong (exemple 1, exemple 2) and shallow information about a small number of redundant artistes in all sections (perhaps with the exception of the "Selected image" section). WikiProject Pop music does not provides tools for expanding the portal. Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - All Portal:Pop music/Selected pictures subpages were created before the above mother page, which have only one edit. All eight images were included in 2013 by a only one user. The method for adding new images has a red link since the creation of the portal. The pageviews of Portal:Pop music/Selected pictures is no more than 10 a month.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The topic has 21,000 articles, including 1000 GAs. The Selected pictures parent page is a wrapper which simply transcludes its subpages and requires little or no maintenance. The subpages were indeed created before the parent (by about 30 minutes).  Waiting until the transcluded subpages were ready seems like sound practice rather than a deletion rationale.  We now have the tools to replace those pages by direct excerpts, allowing updates to the articles to appear in the portal immediately and avoiding wrong information. Certes (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - This portal is underviewed and has little maintenance, but is well-populated. The portal had an average of 21 daily pageviews in calendar 2019, as contrasted with 2335 for the head article, a ratio that is typical of portals.  Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Pop_music is interesting in that it shows pages called "Selected album" (2 pages) and "Selected albums" (10 pages), "Selected artist" (5 pages) and "Selected artists" (14 pages), and "Selected song" (5 pages), and "Selected songs" (16 pages), and one "Selected subgenre", or 53 articles in all.  It isn't clear on cursory examination why there are two sets of album pages, and of artist pages, and of song pages; a detailed analysis is not being done.  The articles were mostly content-forked between 2011 and 2013; some have been content-forked more recently.  Like all portals with content-forked subpages, the subpages are subject to rot, with the main risk being the death of persons.  Not all of the pages have been checked, but Portal:Pop music/Selected artists/3 is a content-forked subpage for David Bowie, and does not reflect that he died in 2016.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Question - Is Certes proposing to maintain the portal, or are they theorizing that a portal maintainer will show up? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am proposing that I or someone else do a one-off overhaul of the portal which will immunise it against future problems such as featuring an artist without mentioning their death. This is a simple process which  and others have already applied successfully to similar portals. In the longer term, I hope that someone will show up to refresh the portal occasionally.  That will not be me; I am not a subject expert. Certes (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 *  Conditional keep Excellent topic for a portal, not too wide (like Portal:Music is), not too narrow (lots of good content that can be used). Is viewed daily. Clearly in need of some TLC (at the very least all BLP excerpts need to use automated transclusion or have a once-a-month maintainer). The portal is a bit bland, but if the BLP issue is fixed, I don't see why it should be deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 09:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Certes fixed the bio excerpts, so this is maintained enough not to be deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 20:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - The comments in this Mfd lead us to the old discussion about portals. If there good content in quantity, if there tools that solve the problems, why some portals remain abandoned even after the great discussion about them (including direct posts on wikiprojects talk pages)? The fact is that the topic is narrow and there are no editors interested in a portal about it. The use of transclusion tools only makes sense on a topic that attracts editors and readers. I maked the updates described by Certes in several portals (Portal:Geography, Portal:Chess, Portal:Erotica and pornography]) and did not receive any feedback from editors related to the theme. Updating portals abandoned by the editors specialized in the theme is to confirm the argument that portals are a toy for those who like them.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Pop music is a typical portal and MfDs like this one risk becoming a proxy for yet another re-run of "Should the Portal: namespace continue to exist?". I hoped that with most portals deleted and systematic improvements in progress to the survivors we had reached an accommodation on that matter.  Certes (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We should probably get back to working on that portal RfC at some point so we at least get clear criteria to measure a portal by. (But I do not volunteer to lead that discussion). —Kusma (t·c) 16:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination contains a rationale to archive, not to delete.  Deletion should be reserved for things that should never have been created. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. - The entire deletion rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and as pointed out above goes into a reason to archive. This should be speedy closed as its not a valid argument for deletion on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "archive" in the MfD sense of "delete" or in the usual sense of "storing ... kept"? Certes (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have edited the Selected artist section of the portal to transclude excerpts automatically. This ensures that a current version of the biography appears.  I retained the existing selection, though it is now simple to change without having to write summaries manually.  Similar edits could easily be rolled out to other sections such as selected album but this seems less necessary, as the information is likely to remain accurate, and less helpful, as the excerpts have been carefully hand-crafted.  This change should address a main concern about lack of past and future maintenance causing factual errors. Certes (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pop music appears to be an average portal with the right sort of breadth.  The main concern (outdated biography forks) has been addressed for the present and future.  The tools for expanding the portal are similar to other portals: the list of articles from which excerpts appear can be expanded as easily as any other list.  Most portals have low page views; it is not clear that this is a valid deletion rationale.  Keep, without prejudice to a new MfD if a consensus on portal criteria emerges later and this portal cannot easily be improved to meet those criteria. Certes (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficiently broad topic. Has now received update. IMO, pageviews are not an argument for deletion. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 15:02, 13 March 2020 (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.