Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Botswana

 __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) 00:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Botswana


Stillborn portal. Four out of five selected articles created in 2010. The fifth was created in 2015. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This junk micro-portal has been abandoned for over nine years after being dumped immediately after it was created, save for a single one-off addition in 2015. 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 nine years of no maintainers and it had an abysmal 12 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Botswana having 2913 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 Botswana is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete  as per Mark S and NH12. Any re-creation should be only via Deletion Review.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a long-abandoned portal, whose selected articles consist of outdated content forks which since their creation have had only trivial edits. It should have been deleted long ago.
 * In addition to the points above, note that Portal:Botswana/In the news is displaying a set of 8 stories, each dated only by month and day. Since it's labelled "news", readers are entitled to expect that there is something new about it ... but the most recent item is from 2011, and the oldest is from 2005.  This could probably be easily fixed, but the fact that nobody has fixed it in 8 years is a stark illustration of the abandonment.
 * 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 trivially small numbers of readers, and no maintainers.
 * I also oppose recreation. We have nearly a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 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.