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.
Portal:Sony was the least-viewed of the 6 portals that were kept in the Mixed Bag nomination, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mixed bag of group portals. It is also an abandoned never-developed mini-portal. It was procedurally kept, but the closer noted that it may be renominated. During the Jan-Feb 2019 period, the portal had 11 daily pageviews, as contrasted with 3466 for Sony. The viewing of the portal increased on April 22 due to the increased attention to portals, and for the Jan-Jun 2019 period, there were 31 daily pageviews, as contrasted with 3268 for Sony, still less than 1% of the views for the article. The portal was developed in 2008, and its originator has been inactive since 2008, but the portal has never had a variety of articles, only a phone, an article, a console, and a tablet. The portal provides nothing that is not also available via the article, except possibly the teaser that a viewer might think it provides something. It also relies on the architectural failure of subpages that are partial copies of pages. This is a stillborn portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews of en:Portal:Sony 2019-07-01 – 2019-07-27 The only virtue of this portal is that it has given us some hard data on how a trip to MFD boosts a portal's pageviews. See the July 2019 views, and note how the views plummeted after Mixed bag MFD was closed on 19 July,[1] and removed over the next few days from the MFD page and various article alerts listings. The the viewings soared again when this MFD was launched. That's why I and some other editors have been very cautious about which periods are used when counting pageviews. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alucard 16: WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".
In this case we don't need to estimate the likelihood that this portal will "attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". We have hard data to show that it attracts neither readers nor maintainers.
If it was attracting maintainers, then there would be no basis at all four your call to "update" it. The every fact that you make such a plea at all proves the point that it isn't attracting maintainers. The fact you make such a plea after the portals has been at MFD for 3 months shows that even in extremis, it doesn't attract any maintainers, let alone the large numbers required. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 1 August 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.
