Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Extinction

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Extinction[edit]

Neglected portal. The one selected article is a C-class article that has not been refreshed since December 2014.

Portal:Extinction/New articles is a labor-intensive bad idea that hasn't been updated since October 2017.

Please check Portal:Extinct and endangered species when examining backlinks. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but no need for silver bullets, because this portal is already critically endangered with 14 daily pageviews (1826 for article) and one selected article from a few years ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with an asteroid per above and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, being for navigation instead, so it is improper to try to compare dilapidated and useless portals to articles and say they should just be fixed. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised at the last minute just to stave off deletion. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve potentially inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. I support replacement or removal of links rather than redirection, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Biology), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per Crossroads + Robert Mc. This is an exceptionally poor quality abandoned portal, on an excessively narrow topic. The narrowness of the topic and the lack of WikiProject interest means that I also oppose re-creation in any form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deja-vu. Another narrow topic that doesn't add anything above the existing main articles and large navboxes on the topic. Again, effectively abandoned and unsupported by any WP editor (thus violating the dynamic purpose of Portals over and above the main articles+navbox). Again, unread by the public, which is consistent with its lack of usefulness. Britishfinance (talk) 23:29, 9 October 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.