- 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) 14:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Rwanda
Stillborn portal. None of the six selected articles and four bios have been updated since 2010. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 09:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Whatever the theoretical broadness or otherwise of the topic, the fact remains that being broad topic is a necessary-but-insufficient component of 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". The history of the last 9 years clearly shows that this portal is highly unlikely to attract any maintainers at all, let alone large numbers of maintainers.
- An unmaintained portal is significantly worse than no portal. It lures readers to a page which promises to be a gateway, but delivers them to an abandoned building site. This wastes readers' time, and damages the credibility of Wikipedia.
- Meanwhile, the FA-class head article Rwanda does all that a portal sets out to do, and more. It s use of summary-style showcases many subtopics. It has a built-in image slideshow of a higher quality than any portal, and of much greater scope than this portal. Its built-in preview-on-mouseover (only for readers who are not logged in) provides excerpts of far more articles than a portal can do.
- I am sure that its creator launched the portal with plentiful good intent, but a decade later it's clear that the portal is a failed solution to a non-problem. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per the nom and BHG. This portal has been abandoned for over nine years and was dumped right after creation. 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 a very low 19 views per day in May and June 2019 (despite the head article Rwanda having 3291 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 nine years of hard evidence shows Rwanda is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 ( talk) 07:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per Mark S, BHG, and NS12. Any re-creation should go only via Deletion Review. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:21, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Rwanda
Stillborn portal. None of the six selected articles and four bios have been updated since 2010. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 09:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Whatever the theoretical broadness or otherwise of the topic, the fact remains that being broad topic is a necessary-but-insufficient component of 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". The history of the last 9 years clearly shows that this portal is highly unlikely to attract any maintainers at all, let alone large numbers of maintainers.
- An unmaintained portal is significantly worse than no portal. It lures readers to a page which promises to be a gateway, but delivers them to an abandoned building site. This wastes readers' time, and damages the credibility of Wikipedia.
- Meanwhile, the FA-class head article Rwanda does all that a portal sets out to do, and more. It s use of summary-style showcases many subtopics. It has a built-in image slideshow of a higher quality than any portal, and of much greater scope than this portal. Its built-in preview-on-mouseover (only for readers who are not logged in) provides excerpts of far more articles than a portal can do.
- I am sure that its creator launched the portal with plentiful good intent, but a decade later it's clear that the portal is a failed solution to a non-problem. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per the nom and BHG. This portal has been abandoned for over nine years and was dumped right after creation. 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 a very low 19 views per day in May and June 2019 (despite the head article Rwanda having 3291 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 nine years of hard evidence shows Rwanda is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 ( talk) 07:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per Mark S, BHG, and NS12. Any re-creation should go only via Deletion Review. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:21, 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.