Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Role-playing games

 __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. But redirects can be added at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Role-playing games


Static portal abnadoned since 2006.

Created in January 2006‎ by, who last edited in 2014.

The small list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Role-playing games shows:
 * Portal:Role-playing games/Selected article has been the same topic (Dungeons & Dragons) since 2012
 * Portal:Role-playing games/Selected biography has shwon the same topic (Gary Gygax) since 2012
 * Portal:Role-playing games/Selected picture has shown the same image (File:Cowardly lion2.jpg) since 2012
 * Portal:Role-playing games/Did you know, same lone topic as in 2006. Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this 13-year-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trvia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Role-playing game.

WP:POG says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 80 consecutive updates, and over 140 updates in total.

In theory, this might be seen as a broad topic; alternatively, just as a narrow topic which has been copiously documented. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers.

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the magical thinking that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages, as has recently been done with Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This portal has 20 daily pageviews, which hardly justifies the effort of maintaining a miniature Main Page. The head article has 866 daily pageviews.  The 43:1 ratio of pageviews is less lopsided than for some portals, but still doesn't mean that the portal is needed.  It may only mean that readers go to articles on specific games or types of games.  Robert McClenon (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Portal:Dungeons & Dragons or Delete. This is an interesting scenario which I find may become all the more common as we continue on at WP:MFD. Here we have a child portal that is considered more active than the parent portal (see MFD:P:D&D for additional info). Either way, File:Cowardly lion2.jpg has nothing to do with RPGs and Gary Gygax is known for being the creator of D&D. Therefore, what little relevant selections that remain are redundant to the the aforementioned child portal. To explain my !vote, it might be worth it to redirect the main portal page to P:D&D, but that is to say nothing of the subpages which probably should be deleted as useless. Related nomination: MFD:Portal:Dragonlance. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:57, 25 May 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.