Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Apple Inc. (2nd nomination)

:{{pagelinks|Portal:Apple Inc.}} – (View MfD)

{{priorxfd|Mixed bag of group portals|Portal:Apple Inc.}}

Portal:Apple Inc. is a single-company portal. In Jan19-Jun19, the daily pageview rate was 39, as opposed to 10,996 daily views for the head article. (In Jan19-Feb19, the daily pageview rate was 40, and the head article was 12,099.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Apple_Inc. shows 4 biographies and 17 articles. Many of the articles date to 2013. Some have had drive-by edits. Some are unchanged since 2013. Some have had only reverts of vandalism. (At least the vandalism was reverted.) Portals are usually evaluated based on a three-part test: breadth of subject area; large numbers of readers; portal maintainers. A single-company portal should be evaluated according to a four-part test, including neutral point of view, the second pillar of Wikipedia. The number of readers is marginal. The portal does not appear to be maintained. The portal is not neutral. Although there is one article about a criticism of Apple, otherwise the portal reads like a catalog or an annual report. This is an unmaintained non-neutral portal.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - The way that the previous nomination of the mixed bag was made left a lot of debris, and really made it difficult to create this nomination. I think that I have cleaned up the nomination, but am not yet sure, and will appreciate any help from other editors and administrators in making this into a clean 2d nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

::Good job putting this together, @Robert McClenon. The only issues I can see are that my vote is not showing up at the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion listing of this portal, and that the MfD is titled "(2d nomination)" instead of "(2nd nomination)". Newshunter12 (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per the nominator. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers, as laid out above (the portal only has 0.35% of the daily views of the head article when using the Jan-June numbers). POG also states portals should be associated with a WikiProject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple is best described as semi-active or dormant; while there was one editor to editor conversation in early 2019 that appears to have been spawned by a mass invite to participate in the project, the previous most recent [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Apple_Inc.&type=revision&diff=540206210&oldid=540205662 conversation] occurred in February 2013. The last post on the talk page focused on the portal itself was in June 2009, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Apple_Inc.&type=revision&diff=299464614&oldid=299088333 noted] that the portal was not being maintained and they would take over as the maintainer, which they did for a whole [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sandgem+Addict&namespace=100&tagfilter=&start=&end= six minutes], as their portal space editing history shows.

:I oppose re-creation as a decade of hard evidence shows Apple Inc. is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or steady maintainers, and a private company should not have an individual portal. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, and oppose re-creation. Narrow topic, lowish readership + poor maintenance = 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". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Note on backlinks. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if this discussion is closed as delete, I suggest that the backlinks be removed. I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries, but in this case I see no suitable alternative portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 12 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.