Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The Prisoner

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 14:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:The Prisoner



 * Delete - Even though carefully curated, this portal's subject area, a show that ran for only one season, is not sufficiently broad to meet the requirement of the WP:POG guideline. The article and template provide more than adequate navigation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:POG does it say, "shows that ran for only one season" are inadequate? Have you informed the Firefly browncoats? Fans of Catcher in the Rye? This is a one-series TV series that's still organising single-theme cons fifty years later. Surely the attention paid to it since carries far more weight than the length of the original run. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Andy, yes of course, the show is a cult classic. But the fan gatherings aren't notable, and there is little scope for new content. All the existing content is neatly grouped in the navbox, and the portal adds almost nothing to that.
 * You're right, POG does not say no "shows that ran for only one season". But it does say that portals should be about "broad topics" ... and a show which ran only for one season is not a broad topic.  It is copiously documented in 61 articles, and there is little scope for expanding that. A full house at 61 articles is not a broad topic. Even the portal's creator agrees (see below) that it is a niche topic. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - agree with nom. We almost deleted Portal:Friends and this is no where near as big a deal as that Legacypac (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean, "We kept Portal:Friends", if you insist on following WP:OSE. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets current WP:POG - hugely influential TV series with broad appeal. I created, curated and maintain this portal. Sections include content not covered in nav box (e.g. DYK and Quotes). Londonclanger (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how it meets ". . .should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." Has it attracted a large number of readers? Are you the single point of failure on maintenance? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Readers: it's less than a month old...Have some patience. Where/what is 'large number of readers' defined for portals? Also "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create." so, probably yes, I am the current maintainer, but again, early days. Londonclanger (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Rather keep - Delete An automated portal, created 2019-03-11T11:25:10Z. only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC) . Clearly maintained. Doesn't belongs to the current series. Future is rather dark, but we are not in the future. Pldx1 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Like Portal:Friends, this is being actively maintained, and is a heritage portal, but is a narrow-focus portal. Perhaps the advocates of portals should propose a new guideline that focuses less on a broad area and more on maintenance.  However, the arguments for Keeping portals are variable, because the portal advocates simply want more portals.  (I wonder whether some of the portal defenders think that deleting a portal deletes the article.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Heritage only in structure, not in lifespan: was just created last month. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, individual TV series don't meet the breadth requirement of WP:POG. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume you'll be nominating Portal:Doctor Who for deletion based on that opinion. And TV series are listed as part of the portal assessment table [] Londonclanger (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Londonclanger: The assessment page is just that: an assessment of the portals which currently exist. It is not a consensus-based inclusion guideline.
 * The fact that these are listed as bottom of the importance scale (not the qaulity scale which you linked) should be a clear indication of their marginality.
 * As to Dr Who, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some day we may indeed have an MFD for that portal. If so, we can discuss it then ... but on this page, we are discussing The Prisoner. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Prisoner is a cult TV series which retains great significance fifty years after it was made.  But it is a narrow topic, where navigation is is provided very effectively by a single navbox: Template:The Prisoner.  The portal wisely extends no further than the navbox, so it adds nothing beyond the selected quotes and the DYK.
 * AFAICS, the selected quotes are all culled from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Prisoner, which is linked from the head article.
 * And the DYK extracts are listed at Portal:The_Prisoner/Did_you_know/List, where they look uncannily like the "trivia" sections we used to have at the bottom of articles, until an RFC about a decade ago led to them all being culled.
 * So we're left with a portal which adds nothing useful to the navbox, and therefore duplicates the the article.
 * It also fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas". --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The selected quotes do not exist anywhere else but on this article - I should know as I sourced and referenced each one.
 * From looking at other Portals DYK appears to be mostly related facts ("trivia" in some people's analysis) to the article, so I simply following current standards.
 * That could be said of the vast majority of portals. But I've made an effort to add content beyond the navbox to get readers interested and engaged with the topic. Portal has a number of subpages.
 * The current assessment criteria for Portals does contain niche TV series [], irregardless of that being termed 'Bottom', it's there in black and white. Londonclanger (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Londonclanger, I'll take those one at a time
 * Congratulation on your hard work sourcing the quotes. However, Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, not a repository of content forks of Wikiquote.  Your quote colection should be moved to Wikiquote
 * Indeed, other portals also have DYK-sourced lists of trivia.  But again, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  We should have less trivia, not more: see WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections.
 * You clearly have worked hard, but the result still doesn't make a portal which adds meaningfully to the navbox. It is just:
 * Two boxes of excerpts from articles already linked in the navbox
 * One box of DYK trivia
 * One box of quotes which belong on Wikiquote
 * An image gallery
 * The assessment page is just that: an assessment of the portals which currently exist. It is not a consensus-based inclusion guideline. The fact that TV show poprals are listed as bottom of the importance scale (not the quality scale which you linked) should be a clear indication of their marginality.
 * So I'm sorry, but this still hits the usual problem with narrow-topic portals: it is redundant to the head article. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 16 April 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.