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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stillborn portal. Three selected articles and three bios started in 2010, never updated. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nom. This junk micro-portal has been abandoned for over nine years after being dumped immediately after it was created. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over nine years of no maintainers and it had an abysmal 10 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Gabon having 1740 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I am strongly against allowing recreation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Gabon is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Mark S and NH12. Any re-creation should be via Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a long-abandoned mini-portal, whose six selected articles/biogs consist of only outdated content forks, most of which are entirely unchanged since creation. The others have had only trivial edits.

To my surprise, I find that the 9 DYK items are all genuinely sourced from WP:DYK, which is a welcome change from the sea of fake DYKs on so many other portals. However, all the items date from 2010 or earlier. Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this nine-years-and-older list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a WP:TRIVIA section.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has attracted no maintainers and only trivially small numbers of readers: the data for the last four years shows an average across the whole period of only 10 views per day, and the graph shows a steady fall .

I also oppose recreation. We have nearly a decade's evidence that editors simply don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 21 August 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.