Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cape Verde (2nd nomination)

 __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) 14:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Cape Verde


Stillborn portal. Four selected articles, five bios and six islands. None have been updated since they were created in 2009. Prior XfD in 2009 was closed keep after a flurry of last-minute edits apparently swayed the closing editor. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade and was never fully completed, which is why some of its sub-pages contain red links to never added materials. The biography for Horace Silver fails to mention that he died over five years ago in 2014, since it was last updated by a human in Feb. 2009. 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 a decade of no maintainers and it had an abysmal 13 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Cape Verde having 3985 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 over a decade of hard evidence shows Cape Verde is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a long-abandoned portal with low page view. It clearly fails 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".
 * I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Concur with analyses by Mark S, NH12, and BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 17 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.