Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biotechnology

 __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) 07:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Biotechnology

 * – (View MfD)

There are 12 selected articles, of which all but one have not been updated since March 2006. Selected articles/January was updated this August.

Nearly all Selected questions and DYK have significant grammar problems.

DYK? '...that still most of the mechanisms that make possible that only 20.000 genes are able to generate more than a million of proteins in the blood are unknown?" Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This junk portal has been abandoned for a decade, save some one-off updates by passing editors, and is 8 articles short of POG's minimum of 20. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has had a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 22 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Biotechnology had 2,050 views per day in the same period). This is a sharp long-term decline from the 43 views per day it had from July 1 to Dec. 30 2015.
 * POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but while WikiProject Biology is still active, no maintainers stepped forward or expressed any interest in this portal during a recent "call for maintainers", nor had it ever been mentioned on the talk page before. It has also never been mentioned on the talk page of WikiProject Technology, nor is it listed on the main page. 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 a decade of hard evidence shows Biotechnology is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:51, 5 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:Biology), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PS oops -- that should be Portal:Biology + Portal:Technology. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Newshunter12. This portal is not maintained and not broad enough to warrant being a portal. The actual WP article should suffice. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The portal in its current state doesn't seem to be of much use as a navigational aid or highlighter of content. Ajpolino (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Mark S and NH12. Low and declining readership (but long-term declining readership is observed for portals in general), not enough articles, not enough maintenance on the articles.  The grammatical errors in DYKs and quotes would not be a reason to delete the portal, but they would be a reason to delete the DYKs and quotes, and are not a reason to keep the portal.   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) 16:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, and oppose re-creation. Low readership + poor maintenance = clear fail 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". -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 11 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.