. Setting aside the ongoing disagreements regarding portals, the general consensus here is that the SF portal is not a specific enough target to likely satisfy a reader interested in this particular piece of fiction. (see also the Harry Potter portal RfD for whom the arguments overlap.) It is also correctly pointed out that the MfD that led to this portal's deletion in the first place found consensus for deletion, not redirection. While consensus can change it does not appear to have in this case. ~ mazca talk 12:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Portal:The Prisoner }} → :Portal:Speculative fiction (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:The_Prisoner&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-10-15&end=2019-11-13&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Portal%3AThe_Prisoner stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Portal:The Prisoner|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Portal:The Prisoner closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Portal:The Prisoner|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Portal:The Prisoner closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Portal:The Prisoner|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Portal:The Prisoner closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
This is an unhelpful redirect. I am sure it was created in good faith after WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The Prisoner, but the target Portal:Speculative fiction contains almost nothing about TV show The Prisoner. A [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22The+Prisoner%22&prefix=Portal%3ASpeculative+fiction%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 search of Portal:Speculative fiction +sub-pages] shows several false positives, and only one archived mention of The Prisoner:
Readers following the link and expecting to find significant coverage of The Prisoner will be disappointed. It is better that readers interested in The Prisoner go to the C-class head article The Prisoner. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Related discussion: WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 13#Portal%3AHarry_Potter. Another redirect to the same portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep. There are now three entries for The Prisoner-related things in the rotations on P:SF. If people enter a search for "Portal:The Prisoner", then they are obviously searching for a portal. If they search for "The Prisoner", the search will already take them right to the main article, so that argument is invalid. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Do whatever you want. I really don't care anymore. BHG has done nothing but cause grief for those who've spent thousands of hours making featured portals. Delete it, keep it, I really don't care anymore. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
:*The reality about which Nihonjoe dissembles is that in response to this nomination, Nihonjoe has just added to the portal's rotation some articles in an effort to justify the existence of a redirect which was not justified when they created it.
::Having done that, it would be helpful if Nihonjoe were list what those 3 articles are ... and why they think 3 items relating to the single TV series The Prisoner is justifiable according to WP:WEIGHT.
::I see that after Nihonjoe's latest edits, Portal:Speculative fiction/Selected articles + Portal:Speculative fiction/Selected biography + Portal:Speculative fiction/Selected works contain between them a total of 229 articles. That means that The Prisoner amounts to 1.3% of the portal, which means that a visitor to the portal has a trivial chance of seeing that content. So my call for deletion still stands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Nihonjoe. People using this term are obviously looking for a portal, and the target is the one which covers The Prisoner. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
:*Thryduulf, after some edits by Nihonjoe to create a post-facto justification for the existence of the redirect, The Prisoner still accounts for only 1.3% of the portal. So a reader could purge the page a few dozen times, and still have a less than 50-50 probability of encountering anything about The Prisoner.
::Trace elements are not coverage. Saying that this portal "is the one which covers The Prisoner" is a bit like saying that the article Winston Churchill covers Oxfordshire. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
::*BHG, you act as if improving the portal to address a raised concern is a bad thing. You complained about something, I addressed the concern, and now you're complaining about me addressing your concern. There's just no pleasing you, is there? You aren't going to rest until every portal is destroyed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and as I stated elsewhere on a related redirect's discussion page, there may be technical reasons to delete this redirect that incorporates the pseudo-namespace "Portal:" prefix. I'm staying away from the "Portal" namespace deletion discussions with a 10' pole (minimum length), but since this is just a redirect, it's within both my sphere of competency and personal comfort level. Yes, redirects are cheap, but I don't think this is a plausible redirect. Plus, what would happen if someone wanted to create a Harry Potter portal (as Portal:The Prisoner would undoubtedly want to be retargeted to a page of that new portal)? Sure, that example is a little like predicting the future, but no more than assuming the visitor who typed "Portal:The Prisoner" wanted specific featured content on the Portal:Speculative fiction portal. Arguably, this is a more realistic scenario. We'd end up in a conflict situation, no?--Doug Mehus T·C 15:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
:*It is not a "pseudo-namespace" (as you keep calling it). It's a completely valid namespace. No "pseudo" about it. Namespaces either exist or they don't. There are no sort-of namespaces. It's in every complete list of namespaces on the site. As for retargeting to a specific page of the portal, that's not how portals work. As far as I know (and I don't claim to know everything about portals, though I'd say I know quite a lot more than most people), there is no way to do what you suggest short of creating a subpage of the portal that contains only articles related to The Prisoner, and that's not how portals are (or should be) designed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|Nihonjoe}}, okay, so I made a mistake. I thought there were pseudo-namespaces, but I guess that's just referring to namespace shortcuts.--Doug Mehus T·C 20:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:COSTLY (we really want redirects from every speculative fiction work?) and the result of the MfD, which was delete, not redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's a fallacious argument. No one is suggesting "redirects from every speculative fiction work". This was a speculative fiction portal, and it was redirected to the speculative fiction portal. Since we generally avoid cross-namespace redirects, the suggestion someone else had of redirecting to the article won't work. If people are looking for a speculative fiction portal in the first place (which this one was), then pointing them to the closest thing is a good thing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|Nihonjoe}}, I disagree that {{u|UnitedStatesian}}'s argument is "fallacious" as you claim. Nevertheless, by your own admission, we generally avoid cross-namespace redirects, this adds to my argument above that we should delete this on the basis that, should a The Prisoner portal be needed, we should not be occupying that term. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say delete {{s|and salt protect Portal:The Prisoner, without prejudice to it being re-created as a portal but with prejudice to it be re-created as a redirect.}} Doug Mehus T·C 20:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
::::Why would you you salt it? It hasn't been repeatedly recreated. It meets none of the requirements for salting. That's simply absurd. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
::::{{re|Dmehus}} What in the world are you talking about? Everything you just said is absurd. Let's break it down: 1. UnitedStatesian's argument is fallacious because it involves the hypothetical creation of other redirects from all works of speculative fiction, which no one is suggesting. 2. This is not a cross-namespace redirect, it's a redirect from portal space to portal space which is the same namespace. 3. The MfD established that there should not be a portal on this subject. 4. WP:SALT is only for titles that we do not want anything occupying that title AND it has been repeatedly recreated. This doesn't fit either of those since by your own admission you want a portal on the subject—salting would prevent that. 5. You only get one bolded "vote". Since you already "voted" above, you shouldn't also be bolding in your reply because that could potentially confuse the closer. -- Tavix (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Tavix}} On the bolding, my understanding is that we don't vote, so multiple bolded !votes by the same editor/administrator shouldn't matter if the closer is reading and substanting the arguments, no? Nevertheless, I don't think I !voted more than once, though I did bold other possibilities for emphasis in a subsequent comment. Those aren't my !vote. I'm not saying it's a cross-namespace redirect, so you're right, it wouldn't qualify for CSD. However, I'm not sure we should be creating redirects in the portal space for potential portals, just to serve as plausible search terms. I look at the portal space somewhat differently than other namespaces with respect to redirects. Whereas patrons type in plausible article names in the web browser's address bar hoping they'll hand on the right page, I don't see that being as plausible in the portal space because they'd have to precede it with Portal: and because the portal space generally gets such low pageviews anyway. I've withdrawn my suggestion re: salting. Doug Mehus T·C 15:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
::::::Doug, technically you're right, but multiple bolded votes is bad practice. No reason to make things more difficult for a closer. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I just don't see how this is going to satisfy a reader looking for a portal on The Prisoner, and can easily see how it would WP:SURPRISE and disappoint them. Why not Portal:Television, or Portal:United Kingdom? We should use subtopic redirects in portalspace sparingly, and with high consideration given to an actual user's experience. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per BDD. We no longer have a portal covering The Prisoner, and this redirect gives readers the (false) impression that we do. It is, in my mind, the equivalent of redirecting Portal:Spanish Civil War (or any other war) to Portal:History because the latter happens to contain one or a few mentions of the former. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
:Comment I will not be commenting here further. BHG has sucked all the joy out of working on enwiki. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:02, 27 November 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.
