Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tibet

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) 08:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Tibet[edit]

One Selected Article, one Bio. Since 2008! Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade (save one bio update in 2010) and was never completed, which is why all it's sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials. 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 10 years of no steady maintainers and it had an abysmal 13 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Tibet had 3658 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 oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Tibet is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mark S and NH12. Two articles that are a decade old is not a portal. Any re-creation can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this portal is junk, from day one that it was created.Catfurball (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another abandoned bonsai portal. It should have been deleted long ago.

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 only trivially small numbers of readers, and no maintainers.

I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. If you close this 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 (in this case Portal:Asia and Portal:China), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 25 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.