- 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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 14:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Portal:British Columbia
Stillborn portal. Two highlighted articles and three selected bios that haven't been updated since 2007/08. Some DYKs were added in 2013. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 07:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This portal has been abandoned for over a decade, except for two bursts of one-off updating in 2013-14 by two different editors. 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 a very low 15 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article British Columbia having 3222 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 over a decade of hard evidence shows this topic is not broad enough to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 ( talk) 17:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and oppose re-creation per nominator and per @ Newshunter12.
- This is a long-abandoned portal. With low pageviews and almost a decade of neglect, it clearly fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per Mark and BHG and analysis by NH12. DYKs are just glitter at best. An editor who wants to re-create this portal without forked subpages can go to DRV. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, unmaintained. Clearly a broad topic, so allow recreation if anybody wishes to maintain a portal here. There is nothing intrinsic in this topic that makes it less suitable for a portal than Portal:Cheshire, just one happens to be maintained and the other is not. It is absolutely not an issue of topic, but one of people. (I don't expect such a recreation to happen, I just don't see why anybody wishing to do so should go through extra bureaucratic hoops). — Kusma ( t· c) 10:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete this portal isn't needed. Catfurball ( talk) 16:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 14:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Portal:British Columbia
Stillborn portal. Two highlighted articles and three selected bios that haven't been updated since 2007/08. Some DYKs were added in 2013. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 07:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This portal has been abandoned for over a decade, except for two bursts of one-off updating in 2013-14 by two different editors. 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 a very low 15 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article British Columbia having 3222 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 over a decade of hard evidence shows this topic is not broad enough to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 ( talk) 17:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and oppose re-creation per nominator and per @ Newshunter12.
- This is a long-abandoned portal. With low pageviews and almost a decade of neglect, it clearly fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per Mark and BHG and analysis by NH12. DYKs are just glitter at best. An editor who wants to re-create this portal without forked subpages can go to DRV. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, unmaintained. Clearly a broad topic, so allow recreation if anybody wishes to maintain a portal here. There is nothing intrinsic in this topic that makes it less suitable for a portal than Portal:Cheshire, just one happens to be maintained and the other is not. It is absolutely not an issue of topic, but one of people. (I don't expect such a recreation to happen, I just don't see why anybody wishing to do so should go through extra bureaucratic hoops). — Kusma ( t· c) 10:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete this portal isn't needed. Catfurball ( talk) 16:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- 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.