Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Roger Moore

 __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) 06:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Roger Moore


The scope of this appears to be films/TV series featuring Roger Moore. That isn't a sufficiently cohesive topic for a category and I don't think it should be a sufficiently cohesive topic for a portal. Otherwise we'll have a portal on every actor with a significant filmography.  Hut 8.5  12:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete few if any individuals warrent a portal. For one WP:BLP policy requires references and Portals do not. Legacypac (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, sharing one actor does not connect the covered articles enough, and there is not enough other material. —Kusma (t·c) 13:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - As the nominator says, we don't need a portal on every actor with a significant filmography. There are very few one-person topics for which portals are in order.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as part of a general process of cleaning up this mess. Until and unless someone comes up with some good reason for having portals at all, or people agree on a sensible and straightforward method of getting rid of them, we should just carry on with this interminable timesink. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Leaning delete, pending establishment of criteria. We need to decide categorically whether we can have portals on single individuals (or singular-entity but multi-individual performers, such as jazz and rock bands), and treat them consistently. If we can't have a portal on Al Jolson or Men at Work, then we likely shouldn't have one on U2 or Monty Python or Mozart.  If we can have portals on all those things, then by what criteria? Can we also have a portal on Snooki or Tommy Tutone or Kim Wilde or Ron Jeremy or Paul Winfield?  The current deletion-spree behavior is not constructive, since it's randomly resulting in deletes and keeps without a consistent rationale in either direction. In this particular kind of case (an actor), it points out a special problem: we are currently categorizing books by their author, songs by their writer, albums by their singer/band, etc., but we do not do this with films and their stars, nor do we creat "by performance" navboxes for TV/film actors.  If we take the same approach with portals, it's going to mean that actor portals get suppressed while others do not even though comparable in every other way (playwrights, musicians/bands, composers, painters, etc., etc.).  There are lots of authors with enough books to meet WP:POG's "20 articles" criterion (if we thinks that's a valid criterion to apply here), but Roger Moore is clearly of more encyclopedic interest to more readers than quite a number of notable authors with 20+ books are (especially academic books, or novels usually perceived as a series, as a single giant work).  It's a thorny question.  I'm going to lean delete in this case because of lack of categorization of works featuring Roger Moore as being Roger Moore subtopics; there is no Category:Roger Moore at all.  But, we apply different criteria to categories and navboxes (in the case of actors, they coincidentally result in suppression of by-performance links); to what extent if at all should portal linkage mirror category and navbox linkage, in a "special" topic area like this?
 * For films it's more usual to categorise by director, e.g. Category:Films directed by Martin Scorsese. The director has far more creative control over a film than a single actor does and is the best equivalent of a composer, painter etc. Note that WP:POG says that a compulsory element of a portal is "Links to the most important categories related to the topic", which means there must be some categories related to the topic.  Hut 8.5  21:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. The lack of a category here is a problem. I agree with Hut 8.5 that films are often associated with the director, not the star. (Though that might only apply recently; take say Casablanca: I can't name the director offhand but I know most of the cast.) In this case a portal for the Bond franchise would seem more viable, though narrow. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:08, 24 March 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.