Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Besancon portal

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  Delette. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Besancon portal


Abandoned portal since 2011, with no incoming links. The city of Besancon is a lovely place, but probably too small to sustain a Wikipedia portal. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or archive. Nearly all Portals should be archived.  They are a relic of the rapid growth phase of Wikipedia and are no longer sustained.  --SmokeyJoe (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @SmokeyJoe: I have no objection to archiving, but I wonder if its worthwhile when there is is little content here? There are other bigger portals which are no longer maintained, and they do have substantial content which would be worth archiving.  But I don't think this one ever got beyond the skeleton phase of construction. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Delete" is fine. Trivial history. These Portals are WP:OR, and in 2011 they had already lost their purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Besançon is another viable alternative. Redirect would be nicer to offsite links, including Wikipedia forks and downstream uses that may lead to a downstream user backtracking to this page.  That backtracking downstream user would be best served by going to the mainspace article, from which they could, in the extremely unlikely chance that they wanted to, examine the redirect history to see the trivial history.  NB.  I am not opposing deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2017 (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.