Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transylvania (2nd nomination)

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) 01:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Transylvania

Old portal from 2006 but even with all the messing around by portal fans they still have not fixed that the only news item [1] is from 2005! This adds nothing not easily found at Transylvania. Well within the scope of Portal:Romania which needs help anyway. About the same level of interest exists in this portal as during Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transylvania Legacypac (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Abandoned since the first MFD. The portal platoon never fixes anything that really needs fixing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Old portal, 32 subpages, created 2006-12-16 05:25:19 by User:Öcsi. A comment by a maintainer, if any, would be useful. Portal:Transylvania. Pldx1 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintained, narrow scope, almost unused.

The previous MFD in 2007 was all about the lack of maintenance. Twelve years later, hat has not changed. As is so often the case with portals, one enthusiastic editor creates them, then they move on and nobody else does anything routinely until it comes to MFD and there is a brief flurry of fixes before it lapses back to unmaintained.
Narrow scope: Transylvania is only a Level 4 vital article, i.e. it's not even in the top thousand topics. It's in the 1,001–10,000 range, and the vast number of unmaintained portals shows that en.wp simply doesn't have the resources to maintain good quality portals for even the first thousand. WP:POG requires that portals be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and this evidently too narrow to attract portal maintainers.
Almost unused. POG requires portals which "attract large numbers of interested readers", but this one gets on average only 8 pageviews per day.

Time to delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 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.