Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Star Wars (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) 00:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Star Wars

 * – (View MfD)

Does a franchise, however large, support a portal? Just like biography-based portals (which have all been deleted) franchise-based portals like this one are totally redundant with the main article.

Redundancy in portals is a waste of time for readers and editors.

This portal is totally useless, presents the same information as the article Star Wars, but based on a tree of fork content (mixing movies, games, biographies with fictional content).

Are franchise portals just Fan service? Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. A film series is way too narrow a scope for a portal. The portal adds nothing over the topic Main Article + NavBoxes + WikiProject Star Wars (which has the fully structured directory of topic articles). Being effectively abandoned (even by vandals, despite the main article requiring indefinite protection), we also get POV/FORKING issues. Britishfinance (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. Redundant to head article Star Wars and with low viewership. The B-Class head article also has a set of rich and versatile navboxes, which are all readers need for exploring this topic. As with Portal:Harry Potter and Portal:Pokémon (both deleted at MfD), this is a portal about a popular franchise, but the portal is long abandoned junk created by fans as a fan-service and who effectively left it to rot many years ago. Just delete it, and I oppose re-creation as individual franchises should not have a portal as they are too narrow a topic and can easily be viewed as adverts. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This portal had | 26 average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, which is only 0.2% of the 12,711 average daily pageviews of the head article, Star Wars.
 * The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense.  The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense.  It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers.  (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.)  Common sense imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense:  (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies).  Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable.  Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
 * Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Star_Wars shows 30 general articles, 6 races, and 7 biographies. All were forked in 2013.  An incomplete spot-check shows that many of them have been tweaked between 2014 and 2017.  Biography 5, of Carrie Fisher, was updated to reflect her death.  The portal does not have a portal maintainer, and updates appear to have been sporadic.
 * The portal is not serving as a useful navigational device or showcase for a topic that has myriads of readers. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 9 November 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 a bot (BHGbot 4) which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries.
 * in this case I think that appropriate new links would be to Portal:Speculative fiction in all cases, and also add Portal:Television or Portal:Film if the context justifies it. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. As noted above, this is too narrow a topic for a portal, and its is poorly maintained.
 * And as and  Newshunter12 both rightly note, a portal is redundant for a tight-bound topic such as this where a comprehensive set of navboxes (see Category:Star Wars templates) can (and in this do) provide much better navigation.  Navboxes have the key advantage that the reader can move directly from page to page, rather than having to load a separate portal page.
 * Robert McClenon usefully points to the portal's low readership, and contrasts it with the very high readership of the head article. Star Wars is a very popular and significant media franchise, and readers flock to the head article, but only 0.2% of them visit the portal. (And that's not due to lack of links: there are 320 links from articles to the portal).
 * There is a WP:WikiProject Star Wars, and it's still just about active, with a human post every month or two. But it shows little interest in the portal.  I searched its talk archive for "Portal:Star Wars", and there were only two hits, of which the more recent was an MFD notice in 2013.  Nothing in the last 6 years.
 * It seems to me that evident redundancy and resulting lack of interest from both readers and editors makes this a bit of a poster child for User:Britishfinance's concept of "rational abandonment". -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 06:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: @, it's actually fan worship, but even still... ToThAc (talk) 20:17, 13 November 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.