Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Performer portals

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Performer portals

Delete. Well, I was waiting for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Music Portals by Moxy to be closed so we have more substantial precedent for additional music portals, but I can't wait any longer (parenthetical rant: why is there so much agita at WP:RFA if the resulting universe of admins is then completely incapable of closing deletion nominations that have any sort of nuance or depth of discussion? But I digress). These are all multi-page portals, but all are unmaintained and all fail WP:POG's breadth-of-subject-matter requirement. And as has been pointed out repeatedly elsewhere, WP:BLP concerns argue strongly against having any portal for a living person, or a group containing a living person, since the portal space is largely unmonitored. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nominator. The fail both the scope and maintenance requirements of WP:POG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ..but should note these are not listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Music Portals by Moxy .--Moxy 🍁 14:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:UnitedStatesian - The answer is that the anti-admin editors at RFA don't want admins who will act decisively in cases like this, because those might also be admins who might block them for incivility. So experienced content creators who are wishy-washy about deletion get the mop. Also, admins who have clear views on portals, like User:BrownHairedGirl, will have already !voted and can't close the discussion. Does that answer your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Moxy - We know. We know. US was hoping to get the first batch resolved before opening another, and gave up. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A comparison of the average daily pageviews for these portals and the average daily pageviews for the head articles is informative, and may illustrate another reason why portals for single performers or single performing groups are not useful. The comparisons are as follows:

Performer Portal Head Article

Eminem 13 19,275

Rihanna 16 14,713

Taylor Swift 9 17,722

The Clash 7 2,407

Typically the pageview ratio is approximately 100:1. That is, there are 100 times as many views to the head article as to the portal. The pageview ratios for the three current popular performers are in the range of 1000:1. There are 1483 times as many views for Enimem as for his portal, 920 times as many views for Taylor Swift as for her portal, and 1970 times as many views for Rihanna as for her portal. Popularity of a performer and of the article about the performer is not a predictor of popularity of a portal about the performer. Delete these portals with prejudice against re-creation of portals about these individual performers (and group). Popularity does not extrapolate to portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See the table containing the above metrics and metrics for other bands and artists above as Music Portals by Moxy. Popularity of a performer does not equate to popularity of a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.