Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dungeons & Dragons: Difference between revisions

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: Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Dungeons & Dragons

Portal:Dungeons & Dragons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Like Portal:Warhammer this is redundant to Portal:Role-playing games which already features D&D as a selected article. Insufficent scope for a portal. 418 page views on the portal vs 94,000 on the head article shows readers prefer the mainspace article which is a much better introduction to the topic. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A well thought out and connected area to all (or even most) of the interconnected pages I would consider related. Was an auto-follow as soon as I saw it. The news and tasks sections could use an update, its true, but it's still led me to so much more content than I thought would exist. Portal Roleplaying games is a broader focus that loses the detail and community of this one. Vecna would belong here, but not as arguably in RPGs. Secondarily, your metrics are NOT comparing apples to apples as the two don't have equal exposure to the general usership, nor do you have a control group to compare against. Thirdly, if you think it should be merged ("redundant"), isn't there a better way to do that? Elfabet (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Revert to this pre-automated version – In my view, the overall topic satisfies WP:POG, and cramming everything into Portal:Role-playing games isn't necessary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to help guide my future nomination decisions, it would be helpful to understand your view on the boundary between what is and what isn't a "broad subject" in WP:POG, if you view there is one. Thanks in advance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Per my comment on this nomination, I would have liked this be discussed with Portal:Magic: The Gathering since their scopes are similar. As the other MfD has not ended, I cannot form an opinion as of this time. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Another fairly broad topic, and as I have said repeatedly elsewhere, page views are not a rationale for deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep D&D is of stand alone importance. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Old portal, 42 subpages, created 2009-01-16 13:56:53 by User:Drilnoth. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Dungeons & Dragons. Pldx1 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pldx1: Is this a script you are running? I noticed that you have not commented on all MfD portal nominations with it. How does it work? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear User:MJL. Like anyone else, even you, I am using a computer to take my part in the MfD process. Be assured that I am taking all the required measures in order that my keyboard doesn't dare to do anything without my order, authorization, commit and ex post facto control. How can I prove you that it's me, a human person, that is issuing this answer and not some Martian electrons, hidden in the wires ? By the way another fairly broad topic seems to be a joke (seems to me, I haven't asked my keyboard for it's opinion). Pldx1 (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1 and Robert McClenon: Sorry if there was a misunderstanding, but I was aware of the fact that Pldx1 was using only a semi-automated process and tailoring each response to each nomination. My question was not suppose to be accusatory or to diminish in any way. I was more so curious about the methods with which they are using to employ this process. I actually would like to see it employed more because it generally provides interesting info/insight to the nominations that I have been lurking, yet not all have it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on the chance that someone knows enough about portals to look to see if there is a portal about Dungeons & Dragons it seems much more likely that they would search for Dungeons & Dragons rather than role-playing games. Given the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons at the role-playing games portal would it makes sense to convert this title to a redirect?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I can see that User:Pldx1 is behind the computer assistance, because they sometimes ask for a maintainer and sometimes don't. A human is using the script, if it is a script. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - First, page views are, in my view, a rationale for deletion. Second, not really a broad subject area, just a subject area of broad interest. Third, an argument as to why a portal is better than a navbox or embedded links would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I believe DnD is a sufficiently notable and robust topic to support a portal. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 15:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The DnD set encompasses FIVE HUNDRED ARTICLES. Look at the Community tech bot's stats listed at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Popular pages. And guess what ? the page views of Portal:D&D are [wmfabs] 12 per day, when the shittiest stub of the 500 articles is far ahead with 38 views per day. Instead of being a navigation tool for jumping from Dungeon to Dungeon, this shameful portal only weakens the views per page per day of the whole set. Let us dispose of the weakest link ! Let it be eaten by the Dragons ! Pldx1 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm unconvinced on the argument to merge to the "higher" RPG portal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A single RPG franchise does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:18, 1 May 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.