Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Archaeology

 __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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Archaeology

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected portal.

Ten selected articles from July 2008. Topics are only marginally related to the trade of archaeology. I mean, sure, some of these articles relate to prehistory civilizations that left traces of themselves in the dirt, but few of these articles deal substantially with the process of their excavation or recovery.

Twenty DYK blurbs from July / August 2008. Only one DYK/1 has been updated.

Selected article/9 was vandalized in January 2009. IP reverted in March.

Selected article/2 was vandalized in February 2008 and reverted by IP two weeks later,

Selected article/4 was vandalized in November 2008 and reverted by an IP in February 2009. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This Bonsai portal has been abandoned for over a decade, and is 10 articles short of POG's minimum of 20, without factoring in many of its articles are not about archeology. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This abandoned portal has had over a decade of no maintainers and it had a very low 24 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Archeology had 1,406 views per day in the same period). This is a significant long-term decline from the 41 views per day it had from July 1 to Dec. 30 2015. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Archeology is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per analysis by Mark S and NH12. Too few articles and inadequate maintenance.   There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems.  Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, and including a maintenance plan (since lack of maintenance is a problem with most portals), can go to Deletion Review.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly unmaintained, and I don't think any of the active archaeology editors are interested in picking it up. I would note that the idea that articles about archaeological sites (e.g. Angkor Wat) or prehistory are somehow not within the scope of archaeology is a little bizarre. Archaeology is not a "trade". It's the scientific study of... civilisations that left traces of themselves in the dirt. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks?  I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:History), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 08:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Joe Roe. I share Joe's concerns about the nominator's description of archaeology, but like Joe I agree with the nom that this is an abandoned portal with no maintainers in sight. It therefore fails WP:POG. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 08:06, 9 September 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.