Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Robert E. Howard

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Robert E. Howard[edit]

One of the better constructed single individual portals, but the one has issues that show lack of maintenance. Portal:Robert_E._Howard/Selected_image contains both redlinks and selections with no images.

Page 2 contains this "This section of The Robert E. Howard Portal contains information about Robert E. Howard. This information covers Robert E. Howard articles on Wikipedia, additional resources related to Robert E. Howard and the portal itself (with directions to facilitate its maintenance)." which belongs at WP:YOUDONTSAY User:EEng

Authors works are best explored from the authors mainspace page. We have deleted (I believe) every portal about a single person brought to MfD this year. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results so this fails the scope requirements of WP:POG as clarified by the discussions here. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see a single valid reason to delete. Cleanup is needed, but that is easily handled. I'm not sure why the Page 2 statement should be moved to the linked page, as it adds a nice wry touch to the portal.--Auric talk 12:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2009-01-22T17:59:38Z by User:AdamBMorgan. Pldx1 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete at this time unless someone will agree to be the maintainer of the portal. Keep if someone agrees to maintain. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~I can easily do that.~~ Done.--Auric talk 12:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I appreciate the dedication of interested editor, subject does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. The article is not even a Level-4 article (i.e., the top 10,000). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it meets all of the POG guidelines.--Auric talk 17:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Too narrow a scope. This isn't even in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4 (top 10,000 articles), so it clearly fails the WP:POG test of "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 13 April 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.