Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Toronto

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) 15:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Toronto[edit]

Old abandoned portal with one selection per section with minimal views and no maintainer Moxy 🍁 00:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This portal has been abandoned for over nine years, save for a few passing updates in 2012 by the nominator. 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 18 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Toronto having 6806 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 the city of Toronto is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks to User:Moxy for recognizing that this portal isn't about to be maintained. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with the analysis by NH12. Only two articles (one article and one bio), not maintained in seven years, which is even less maintenance than most unmaintained portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12.

This is yet another long-abandoned micro-portal. It has no selection of content, just a static display of the same pages for nearly a decade. Portal:Toronto/Did you know has only one item, and even that is a fake DYK; I can find no evidence that Yonge Street was ever featured in WP:DYK.

It should have been deleted long ago. I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cities don't need a portal.Catfurball (talk) 16:16, 17 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.