Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mixed bag of group 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 the following: Portal:Motörhead, Portal:Linkin Park, Portal:Slipknot, Portal:Oracle Corporation, Portal:SNK, Portal:Lenovo as uncontested apart from procedural grounds. Please renominate the rest individually. (I'm not going to action this debate for another day or two to hear any possible objections). MER-C 10:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:BBC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Motörhead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Linkin Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Sony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Lenovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Google (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Slipknot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:SNK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Oracle Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Sega (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Nintendo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Apple Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – Withdrawn.

Portal:Microsoft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – Withdrawn.

{{priorxfd|Portal:Microsoft}}

This should be the remaining company portals. I have also included Portal:Motörhead, Portal:Linkin Park, and Portal:Slipknot. Unlike previous nominations, all but two have been maintained in the past (the exceptions are Portal:Lenovo and Portal:Oracle Corporation). The sole basis for the nomination is the limited scope of these portals.

I will begin notifying the creators of these portals to this nomination. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I was notified. I didn't create any of these portals.--Auric talk 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You made four edits to Portal:Nintendo last year that did not seem semi-automated, and I had a liberal mindset for who received notifications. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as useless crap that no-one sees. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a lieigimate reason for deletion.Rillington (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the results on my previous batches of company portals. Update: I'm fine with any additional company portals added to this nomination as my logic applies to all companies. The topical portals like Portal:Software, Portal:Television etc cover these businesses. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Did the previous batches of company portals consist of all automated portals? Was it a mix of automated and hand-created portals? I ask because people have been opining for deletion simply based upon portals being based upon automation, but some of these in this nomination are not, such as the BBC, Google, Nintendo and Sega portals. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BBC. There's good coverage of just the huge number of BBC television programmes, not to mention the rest of the BBC's activities. There was a dedicated Wikiproject, though it is now denoted semi-active. The present portal has 10 selected articles, 9 buildings, 25 DYKs & 12 images (despite the inherent copyright issues), but for some reason only a single bio; there's certainly room for expansion. The apparently broader Portal:Television in the United Kingdom is much newer and less developed, and if the two are merged BBC's history should be preserved. No opinion on the others (I've not examined them). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think lack of maintenance can not be a parameter to discriminate between portals to be deleted or not. In that case, they have to propose portals for updating, not deletion. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with both comments. Rillington (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all

- Old portal, 82 subpages, created 2006-10-13 08:32:51 by User:Unisouth. No portal on a single company Portal:BBC

- Old portal, 34 subpages, created 2007-07-08 21:25:49 by User:Arundhati lejeune. No portal on a single company Portal:Motörhead

- Old portal, 34 subpages, created 2008-09-06 16:40:39 by User:Elvenwong50. No portal on a single company Portal:Linkin Park

- Old portal, 14 subpages, created 2008-04-18 07:39:42 by User:Ultraviolet scissor flame. No portal on a single company Portal:Sony

- Old portal, 110 subpages, created 2009-08-11 14:12:23 by User:Wild mine. No portal on a single company Portal:Google

- Old portal, 36 subpages, created 2008-02-01 05:07:57 by User:Blackngold29. No portal on a single company Portal:Slipknot

- Old portal, 25 subpages, created 2012-10-21 20:54:36 by User:Georgethewriter. No portal on a single company Portal:SNK

- Old portal, 31 subpages, created 2006-06-21 21:48:09 by User:Elven6. No portal on a single company Portal:Sega

- Old portal, 61 subpages, created 2006-04-25 02:17:09 by User:Tree Biting Conspiracy. No portal on a single company Portal:Nintendo

Moreover, saying there's certainly room for expansion is nothing but the usual fallacy. The question is not about the possibility of some entity Who Will Come From the Stars and do the job in some unpredictable future. A portal like Portal:BBC is supposed to be a useful navigation tool. Here, be means being right now. And this is blatantly false. User:Espresso Addict tells us I've not examined the other portals. At facial value, this is surely true. But this seems to imply: "I've carefully examined the BBC portal". And this is less likely. In fact, the last editorial edits to the snippets of this portal are either 2008 or 2010 (see below). We even have this marvelous one: Specially built for the BBC and opened in 1960, BBC Television Centre in London is home to much of the BBC's television output. Studio TC1, at 995 square metres, is the second largest television studio in Britain. The corporation has plans to dispose of the building by 2015. We should have plans to dispose of this kind of cadavers before 20015.

Pldx1 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I spent at least 16 minutes assessing this portal, probably more (I open all MfD'd portals that aren't clearly just automated in tabs and look at them all before starting to comment); I wish I could spend more time but there are so many suggested for deletion these weeks that there aren't enough waking hours in the day to do a decent job. I noted that I hadn't looked at the others at all for the closing admin because they should not assume that I endorse deletion of the others. I looked briefly at the set of article extracts, the history and the code, and paged through the building images (where this mistake was found) to check none of the images had been deleted but didn't read the captions. If one needs to spend more time than that on individual nominations within a bulk set, then the rate of deletion nomination needs to slow right down to make that at all feasible.

Your (presumably bot-generated) dates are of limited value; there's no obvious reason necessarily to change the caption of, say, a picture added in 2008. Generally it still depicts now what it depicted then, though people die and buildings change in use, and possibly more thought needs to be taken as to how to future proof them. (XXX at yyy date remains true, even if the building burns down or the subject dies.)

I have corrected the specific error that you noted, thanks for drawing it to the community's attention -- but I'm not planning to do any major work on any portal up for deletion, and certainly not in the present climate where it's likely to be deleted even if one were to succeed in bringing it up to a high standard within the time frame. There needs to be a mechanism for advertising under-maintained portals for a period before suggesting deletion, so that maintainers can be sought; akin to the two-stage featured article review process. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: I have no clue as to whether you would be surprised by this statement, but I would agree with you for most of what you said. I have pretty meticulously reviewed these portals before I nominated them. I did not nominate these portals because they were unmaintained. In fact, I stated as much in my nomination: The sole basis for the nomination is the limited scope of these portals. On the portal issue, I consider myself a moderate. I very clearly wanted to maintain Portal:Webcomics, but it was deleted nonetheless. However, the speed to which things are being nominated is not the issue. It is mostly the fact we have no clear guidelines for this matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, MJL. I don't agree that the BBC has limited scope, nor do I think it is similar to the companies with which you have bundled it. I do agree that clear guidelines would be helpful; I feel this mad scramble to delete everything in sight under any available rationale, when no-one knows or agrees (or in some cases cares) where the boundaries lie, is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and counter to the RfC last year, which (whatever it did conclude) did not conclude that all portals should be deleted willy-nilly. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what to say to that, Espresso. Portal:CERN was deleted with in the first batch of company portals. One of the ones I bundled, Portal:Google, has been almost consistently maintained since its creation in 2009. I put up some of our highest quality portals if you ask me. The way Portal:Nintendo used to look was great. I think that Portal:Microsoft has a breathtakingly stunning design. If there was ever a good group to be with, I would say it was a combination of the ones I nominated.
One estimate I made put the total number of individual portal nominations at 1,588 (faulty number because that includes redirects). The ones that get bundled are both good and bad. It saves the community time from rehashing the same arguments over and over again, but it can come at the expense of a more in-depth view.
When the guidelines are put forward, I suspect many of these bundled ones will be the first to get undeleted per the criteria we come up with. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't CERN automated from a navbox though? The MfD states it was. These are not. If I had more time & energy I'd review more of these; Google in particular might possibly be a sufficiently broad topic because of their AI research. But there's just too many this week, and I don't quite feel strongly enough atm.

I wouldn't hold your breath either for guidelines or for undeletions. I suspect it is more likely that the entirety of portal space (save the main page & portal current events) will go. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I added Portal:Microsoft and Portal:Apple Inc.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC) + 17:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pldx1, CoolSkittle, Legacypac, Daniele Pugliesi, and Espresso Addict: Pinging users for comment. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those can be deleted too. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• On strike. Adding new lines to an already released list is a repeated annoyance. This is the reason why I systematically add the name of the portal to each and every evaluation I made. Nothing else to add. Pldx1 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on additions. Purely on a procedural note, adding new items to a bundle after the first flush of people have commented is disruptive, even where participants are pinged: most people read MfD from the top, and ignore entries that they have already checked. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pldx1 and Espresso Addict: This has been noted for the future. My apologies to both of you for the disruption. CoolSkittle, I have stricken the relevant additions and withdrawn those nominations. Sorry again, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - Per WP:ADPROMO and WP:NPOV individual Companies portals are a tricky topic, better to deal with companies only in Portal:Companies. Portals of individual companies are also narrow topic like biographies portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced the BBC, whilst technically a corporation under a Royal charter and with its own governing board/trust, as a largely (essentially) tax-funded national broadcasting body that creates/broadcasts free public service television & radio, falls squarely under the definition of "company". I don't know if there are any direct equivalents in other countries? As the oldest broadcaster in the world, and one of the largest, it has a special significance. And I know "I like it" arguments aren't particularly helpful but... as a Brit, it feels borderline offensive to suggest deletion of something related to the BBC when I wouldn't feel at all bothered by such a suggestion relating to a hundred-year-old British company. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Portal:BBC – Meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines per overall content availability, for example, as demonstrated by Category:BBC and subcategories therein. I also disagree with the notion above of deletion per "no portal on a single company", because it's personal opinion, and not based upon portal guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Portal:BBC – Agreed. Rillington (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment. Those advocating for deleting all individual company portals in favour of the top-level one might care to assess Portal:Companies, with its sparse & in some cases peculiar selection of articles, dull design and run of missing reference errors at the bottom. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Portal:BBC, like any other portal, should help to browse on a particular subject. But the basic fact is that nobody cares about this portal. The readers don't care: [wmflabs] says 7285 daily views for BBC, 28 daily views for Portal:BBC. The writers don't care: most of the snippets are from 2008, and there is no new editorial content since 2010 (except from the sole and only biography of this portal, who presented Sport on Friday in the 1990s, death 1999, snippet added 2018). Arguing there is overall content availability only underlines the fact that this dead portal is indeed a cadaver instead of complying with the portal must be maintained and serve a useful purpose as stated in §2 of WP:Portal/Guidelines. Once again, delete this not useable navigation tool. Or rename it: "In Memoriam BBC 2008, When We Were Younger". I will not comment about "no portal on a single company" since this disaster is surely not an advertisement for the said company. Pldx1 (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close - This train is off the rails. I waited to review this and it is now too much of a wreck to review.became an unpleasant statistical task to review. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  To sum things up, the main contention is whether to (a) delete all or (b) weak delete all but keep Portal:BBC. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, now it is a officially a WP:TRAINWRECK. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BBC, Google, Nintendo, Sega and Sony as there is more than enough scope for a portal about all of these. Neutral about the rest as I haven't had time to review them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Portal:Google – Broad scope, plenty of content available (e.g. see Category:Google), some featured content, overall meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines to qualify for a standalone portal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Portal:Nintendo – Broad topic, plenty of content (see Category:Nintendo for examples), plenty of Recognized content (see below). The topic meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep. The nominator's decision to chuck in two bands in with a set of companies if very odd, and doesn't reach help a clear decision. There seems to be a strong case for considering the BBC separately to commercial companies. Yes, this is a trainwreck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with no prejudice to renomination with better bundling. While two have been withdrawn, I think there's still scope for a decent argument based on WP:POG for Google and Nintendo. SITH (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• About procedure - The point to discuss here is not "how many Great Articles belong to such or such topic". Nintendo has 224 of them. Small player. BBC has 31+16+157 of them. Small player. Be More Modest and look at Dungeons & Dragons. And don't even argue: this is not the point. What is to discussed is (1) are these portals policy compliant ; (2) are these portals useful as navigation tools (guideline) ? At Dungeons & Dragons, the portal receives 12 views per day. One third of the worse score of any stub article that belongs to this project. Is someone pretending that BBC or Nintendo behaves otherwise ? At [wmflabs] you can check that absolutely no reader cares about these portals (better use the logarithmic scale! ). No writer cares either, as can be seen when looking at how old are the snippets. User TTH was editorially right when nuking all these cadavers, but wrong when replacing them by automated shit generators. And there we are: while intended to provide a navigation tool, these portals don't. Splitting this discussion into individual ones will only result in expanding the duration of the missa pro defunctis, but will not resurrect any of these portals. On the other hand, separating "In Memoriam BBC 2008, When We Were Younger" from "In Memoriam Nintendo, When We Were Younger" could perhaps give some peace of mind to those who require it to let the past slip out of their hands. Pldx1 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pldx1: It may be worth noting that, unlike wp:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sims (2nd nomination), I did not revert to the pre-automated state. No one has even bothered to do this for Portal:Nintendo yet. The maintainers didn't even notice the change it seems... :( –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is still a train wreck, but User:Northamerica1000 managed to wreck the train on the MFD main line by inserting the name of WikiProject:Nintendo, punctuated to be magic words. This managed to confuse the numbering of sections on the MFD main line. I had to turn off the magic words. This was a good-faith error, but a real error. Please do not put anything in an MFD that will cause large-scale transclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the heads up. I have since modified my !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BBC on the basis stated above--it does look like it need re-vitalising, so it should be kept and revialized. Also Keep Google, Sony, and Nintendo on the basis of the same arguemtn as Appple. These are more than miscellaneous random companies. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear User:DGG. When you are saying Portal:BBC should be revitalized, are you saying that you will do the job, or are you only saying that someone else should do the job, but not you, who have more important things to do than updating a portal without readers? Pldx1 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot work on everything, so I concentrate on articles and drafts. Even so, at my level of activity, I can fix only a few of the thousands I spot that need fixing. I have never actually worked on a portal, or done anything substantial about categories or other navigational devices. Nor do I work with wikidata, or images. Nor do I try to fix things at CCI or SPA or LTA , though I will sometimes help there if checkuser is needed. None of this means I shouldn't give opinions on what needs to be done. We all rely on each other. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all None of these companies meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BBC and Google - each of these has a significant number of related articles so a good candidate for a portal. Might need some work due to the method of creation, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. I've no comment on the other portals listed; my preference is "Keep" but the scope for some of them might not warrant a portal of their own. WaggersTALK 11:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, User:Waggers should work harder. Using his usual stereotypical sentence Might need some work due to the method of creation, as if Portal:BBC and Portal:Google were automated portals, and as if that was used as a rationale to delete says much. These two portals are old abandoned things from the past, created by the good old methods of this so glorious past of 2008. They were not nuked by TTH and quite nothing has ever changed to these sets of outdated snippets. I have already given shameful samples of expiry. Even 2013 is too recent there. It remains might need some work. This work will never been done, too bad for readers sufficiently naive to open a Wikipedia portal. In any case, there are so few of them. Pldx1 (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline. There are plenty of articles that haven't been edited in a long time; we don't delete them just because they're "abandoned", especially when editing can bring them up to speed, as it can in these cases. WaggersTALK 14:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Granted I haven't been following much of what has been happening with Portals but this MfD seems like a trainwreck. I'm not sure why there are three portals that are not companies here since this is supposed to be "the remaining company portals". Last time I checked Slipknot was a band not a company. I'm breaking my votes up based on the portals listed here as I do not feel all should be deleted.
  • Strong Keep for BBC, Google, Nintendo, Sega and Sony -- I agree with the keep reasons above for BBC, Google and Nintendo. I also included Sega and Sony with this group as I feel they satisfy WP:POG.
  • Neutral for Motörhead, Linkin Park and Slipknot -- These should have been listed in their own MfD with a clear reasoning specific to them as they are not companies.
  • Delete for Lenovo, SNK and Oracle Corporation -- These three company portals I feel is more limited in scope than the others I mentioned in my Keep vote and may not meet WP:POG. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 11:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Companies

It was not helpful to combine 10 companies with 3 bands. However, this table shows the average daily pageviews between 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2019. These are old-style manual portals except for Lenovo and Oracle. Lenovo appears to be a single-navbox portal, created by a member of the portal platoon. Pageview metrics are not available for Oracle due to a name change and analyst limitations.

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Ratio	Notes	Percent
BBC	29	6,679	230.3		0.43%
Google	56	21,052	375.9		0.27%
Apple Inc.	40	12,099	302.5		0.33%
Microsoft	73	7,149	97.9		1.02%
Sony	11	3,466	315.1	Originator inactive since 2008.	0.32%
Lenovo	3	2,336	778.7	Single navbox portal, developed Dec 2018.	0.13%
SNK	8	342	42.8	Originator inactive since Oct 2018	2.34%
Oracle				Metrics unavailable.
Sega	12	1,852	154.3	Originator inactive since 2012.	0.65%
Nintendo	42	4,454	106.0	Originator inactive since 2010.	0.94%

None of the companies have more than 100 daily pageviews. None of the companies have more than 3% as many pageviews for the portal as for the article.

Analysis of Music

The following table shows the average daily pageviews between 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2019 for all music portals that have been considered so far. I am not making any claim that this table lists all bands, or all bands that have portals. If your favorite band isn't shown, either it doesn't have a portal, or its portal hasn't been debated yet (or sneaked past me).

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Ratio	Notes	Percent
Eminem	13	19,275	1482.7		0.07%
Rihanna	16	14,713	919.6		0.11%
Taylor Swift	9	17,722	1969.1		0.05%
The Clash	7	2,407	343.9		0.29%
Adele	14	7,403	528.8	Second nomination	0.19%
Justin Bieber	18	18,943	1052.4	Did something happen on 8 Feb? Accesses peak then.	0.10%
Rush	9	3,334	370.4		0.27%
Neil Young	8	5,806	725.8		0.14%
Pink Floyd	13	8,655	665.8		0.15%
The Rolling Stones	9	7,314	812.7		0.12%
Led Zeppelin	14	8,103	578.8		0.17%
Michael Jackson	24	28,527	1188.6		0.08%
Jackson Family	85	3,956	46.5		2.15%
Janet Jackson	7	5,926	846.6		0.12%
Shania Twain	12	4,927	410.6	Median 8. Portal access has weird peak 6 Jan.	0.24%
Frank Zappa	8	4,201	525.1		0.19%
Aerosmith	10	3,224	322.4		0.31%
Avril Lavigne	9	10,197	1133.0	Peak on 15 Feb in article access.	0.09%
Queen (band)	50	59,785	1195.7	Article and portal accesses peak on 25 Feb.	0.08%
Bob Dylan	15	9,373	624.9		0.16%
The Supremes	7	2,437	348.1		0.29%
The Beatles	15	14,088	939.2		0.11%
U2	9	3,993	443.7		0.23%
Grateful Dead	23	2,898	126.0		0.79%
Iron Maiden	11	3,877	352.5		0.28%
The Kinks	8	1,987	248.4		0.40%
Elvis Presley	12	24,375	2031.3		0.05%
Miles Davis	7	3,603	514.7		0.19%
Whitney Houston	7	12,726	1818.0		0.06%
AC/DC	10	7,542	754.2		0.13%
Motörhead	8	2,182	272.8		0.37%
Linkin Park	8	5,300	662.5	Originator made 4 edits in 2008 including setting up portal.	0.15%
Slipknot	8	4,324	540.5	Originator inactive since 2016	0.19%

The three bands that are listed last in the table are included in this nomination. They each have only 8 daily pageviews.

• Delete the three band portals, Portal: Motörhead , Portal: Linkin Park , Portal: Slipknot , each of which have too few views (8 daily) to justify a portal.
• Delete Portal:Lenovo, Portal:SNK, Portal:Sega, Portal:Sony, none of which have 20 daily pageviews.
• Question – Do Portal:Microsoft, Portal:Apple, Portal:BBC, Portal:Google, Portal:Oracle Corporation have maintainers?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete [[[Portal:BBC]], which is not being maintained. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all including Google, Microsoft, and Apple. It is a bad idea to have portals for individual companies, as these portals rather look like advertisement boards. Except probably BBC since that is not precisely a privately held company. SD0001 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Portal:BBC. That the portal can say "The MediaCityUK development ... will become the home of the BBC in Manchester from 2011" indicates that the portal is not being maintained adequately - we shouldn't be luring readers to such pages and thus we shouldn't waste editor time on them. DexDor ^(talk) 16:38, 28 June 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.