Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sega (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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sega

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected portal.
 * Eleven selected articles; one is Stub-class, five are Start-class, three are C-class, one is B-class, and only one is a featured article.
 * Never maintained by the creator, who has been inactive since 2012. Furthermore, the only maintainer of the portal left in 2009.
 * Average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019 are approximately 1.85% of the parent article's average daily pageviews in the same time period.

Clearly yet another violation of WP:POG. ToThAc (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for a decade, save some one-off maintenance by passing editors, and is nine articles short of POG's minimum of 20. Since 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Elven6, who last updated it in June 2006 a week after creation and left Wikipedia in 2012, but it was a change occurring after the portal was created, so no blame can be placed on Elven6. The only maintainer, Janadore, left Wikipedia in 2007. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has had over a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 15 views per day from January 1 to April 30 2019 (while the head article Sega had 1,737 views per day in the same period).
 * POG also requires that portals be associated with a wikiproject, but while the WikiProject Video games/Sega taskforce is semi-active, the portal was last mentioned on the talk page in 2008. What can also be seen on the talk page in that dif is a conversation questioning the value of Elven6's contributions (of very similar content to the portal no less) elsewhere, which were later deleted. The task force seems to have never had anything meaningful to do with the portal and Portal:Sonic was deleted in May 2019, yet it is still listed in the header on both the main page and talk page. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Sega is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 1 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:Video games), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per User:ToThAc and User:Newshunter12 – Low readership, very little maintenance. Another concern with portals on single commercial companies is that they are likely to be affected by conflict of interest and in non-neutral point of view.  This isn't a breadth of topic issue; this is a neutral point of view issue.  (The portal guidelines are contested.  Neutral point of view is the second pillar.)  It is hard enough to maintain neutrality in article space, but Wikipedia has to do that.  It isn't necessary to have commercial portals.  The combination of inadequate maintenance, low viewing, and an inherent neutrality problem, are reasons to delete this portal (without reconstruction).
 * Delete per nominator and per NH12. Too narrow a topic, not maintained, low readership, which adds up to a clear fail of 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". --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 6 September 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.