Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Book of Mormon

 __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) 09:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Book of Mormon


Upon a review, I feel that this portal does not meet WP:POG in terms of the overall depth of coverage that exists on English Wikipedia about the topic (see Category:Book of Mormon for a general overview of available topical coverage). Furthermore, the portal was redirected to Portal:Latter Day Saints on 3 April 2019‎ (diff), which was reverted on 4 July 2019 (diff). North America1000 08:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete.. per nom. The musical was good, though. `&#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 08:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a book should not have a portal period.Catfurball (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Scope is narrow. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Narrow topic, abandoned portal which after 12 years has never got beyond the skeleton form.
 * It has a mucky history:
 * Created in May 2007 by, who was blocked shortly thereafter as a sockpuppet.
 * Hacked about significantly in 2018 by, who was soon thereafter both topic-banned and site-banned for virulent islamophobia.
 * Lots of formatting tweaks in 2018
 * Converted in Sept 2018 to an automated navbox-clone format by TTH.
 * Redirected in March 2109 to Portal:LDS Church, by Legacypac
 * On 3 April 2019‎, the portal was restored by UnitedStatesian to the last non-automated format
 * Later that day, Legacypac redirected it again
 * On 4 July 2019‎,  UnitedStatesian again reverted the redirect.
 * The result is that we now have a micro-portal which isn't so much abandoned as never started. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Book of Mormon shows a tiny set of sub-pages, each of them with no significant change for years.
 * 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 one has clearly failed on both counts. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pageview data. Daily averages January–June 2019:
 * Portal:Book of Mormon: 13 views per day
 * Article Book of Mormon: 1,223 views/day.
 * So the article gets 91 times as many views. The portal is unused as well as useless. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl. I disagree with the comment that this is a narrow topic or that a book doesn't deserve a portal.  The topic is the scripture of a major religion.  User:Mark Schierbecker is making the opposite mistake, in saying that the scope is narrow, as the portalistas in asserting that a topic is a broad subject area.  (So is User:Catfurball.)  They are arguing a priori, from theory, rather than from observation. Whether it is attracting readers and maintainers is determined a posteriori, by observation.  As BHG says, it isn't attracting maintainers. There has been too much unilateral renaming and back-door deletion of portals.  In this case, the redirect-warrior is indefinitely blocked, as are two of the portal's authors (a dark history).  I disagree with BHG's analysis in one area.  Looking at PrefixIndex isn't meaningful.  It isn't pulling subpages.  It is pulling portions of 25 articles from a list.  This is a better design than some portals.  It just isn't good enough to attract readers and maintainers.
 * Delete - per nom. Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:50, 1 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.