Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Algeria

 __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:  delete. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Algeria


Undeveloped portal. Five selected articles. Only articles four and five were updated in September 2017 - the rest were created in 2010. One bio that was added in September 2017 Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This junk micro-portal has been abandoned for over eight years, except for some one-off updates in 2017. 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 eight years of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 25 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Algeria having 5558 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 nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Algeria is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Mark S and NH12. The pageview rate of 25 daily pageviews is better than many portals, but is not reason to keep a portal than is unmaintained.  Any re-creation should be via Deletion Review.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a long-abandoned bonsai portal, which after 14 years still has only 6 selected pages, less than a third of the POG minimum of 20.
 * WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has attracted only low numbers of readers, and no maintainers.
 * I also oppose recreation. There is a decade's evidence that editors don't want to either maintain this one or develop it beyond its perma-dwarf bonsai status. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 21 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.