Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Santana  (2nd nomination)

:{{pagelinks|Portal:Santana}}

Abandoned, redundant portal about a narrow topic: the rock band Santana (band).

Created[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Santana&oldid=394364191] in November 2010‎ by {{user|Tomcat7}}.

The subpages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Santana are a small set:

• Portal:Santana/Selected article/1, /2, /3, /4, the last 3 of which are all untouched for 8 years
• Portal:Santana/Selected song/1, /2, /3, /4 and /5, all untouched for 2½ years
• Portal:Santana/Topics, a content fork of the navbox {{tl|Santana}}.

There are also 4 selected pictures.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both

features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on the article :Santana (band) or on the navbox {{tl|Santana}}
2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on the article Santana (band).

Similar features have been [https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/10/Wikipedia-app-new-navigation-features/ available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app].

The result is that portals are redundant for many topics, especially for topics such as thsi which have a single comprehensive navbox: {{tl|Santana}} has links to 117 unique article pages, each of which can be previewed on the navbox.

WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Recent MFd discusions have agreed that portals about a single band or musician are a narrow topic, except perhaps in some execeptionl cases. This one has not attracted maintainers, and got only [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-01-01&end=2019-02-28&pages=Portal:Santana 7 pageviews per day] in Jan–Feb 2019.

Note that this portal was previously discussed at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Santana. That a poorly-attended discussion closed as "keep", but did not consider the redundancy of this type of portal to its navbox. I am making this nomination to allow a further discussion in light of that new evidence, and ping the participants in the previous MFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::Pinging the participants at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Santana: {{yo|Legacypac|Northamerica1000|Robert McClenon|SportingFlyer|Levivich|Pythoncoder|p=}} ... and the closer DannyS712. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete – I !voted keep in the first MfD, but since then have learned a lot more about portals. Nobody visits them, and it's because narrow-scope portals like these don't offer anything you can't get at the article. – Levivich 04:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as per BHG. I note that one of the original participants has changed their !vote to a Delete. In contrast with 7 daily pageviews for the portal, the head article has 2258 daily pageviews, and that reflects the fact that there is no functionality of rhe portal that isn't already in the article. I doubt that anyone really wants to provide the investment of time for a miniature Main Page. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep this is a disruptive, wikilawyered nomination. I'm unfollowing this, please do not ping me. SportingFlyer T·C 12:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• ""Disruptive wikilawyering" is an, ummm creative and imaginative way of describing an explanation of redundancy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Nom. Another abandoned out-of-date carve-out of the main article+navbox, that nobody want to support, and will only depreciate the integrity of the main article over time. One further thought I have had during these Portal MfDs is on the effect of Facebook fan-pages. What seemed like an interesting idea over ten years ago, has been passed out by Facebook fan-pages. Anything a fan might do in Wikipedia with a band portal would always be inferior to what they could achieve in Facebook (with links into WP as needed for content). E.g not only was there no past, but there really is no future in band portals on WP (or any other type of fan-related portals)? Britishfinance (talk) 13:37, 20 May 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.