Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Assyrians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 23:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old-style manual non-portal, abandoned since 2011.

This portal was created in 2011 by @Kathovo (talk · contribs), who has not edited since mid-2016, and made only 50 edits in the preceding 17 months. Apart from mostly-automated formatting changes, the pages seem to be unchanged since creation in 2011. The subpages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Assyrians show only one selected article and one selected biography, but 15 selected pictures.

It also includes 3 DYK pages and Portal:Assyrians/Assyrians news, all of whose entries lack a year, but were added in 2011.

So in effect this is just a static page with a rotation of pictures. To my mind, that's not a portal: it's a slim single issue of a magazine with an 8-year-old news section that gives no indication of being 8 years old.

The B-class head article Assyrian people and the navbox Template:Assyrian people footer provide much better navigation and a better introduction to the topics.

Like most portals, this one is barely used: only 5 pageviews/day in Jan–Feb 2019.

The topic is probably broad enough to theoretically satisfy WP:POG, which says that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". However, in practice this one attracts neither readers nor maintainers.

So while there is a case for saying the portal be deleted without prejudice to recreating an actually-curated and maintained portal, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time, I think that in practice that would be merely wishful thinking. So I recommend just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 4 May 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.