Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Freemasonry

 __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) 03:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Freemasonry

 * – (View MfD)

Stillborn portal. Two selected articles and four selected bios, which were created in July 2008 and never updated. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for a decade, and is 14 articles short of POG's minimum of 20. The portal 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 a decade of no maintainers and it had a very low 14 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (despite the head article Freemasonry having 9,075 views per day in the same period).
 * POG also states portals should be associated with a WikiProject, but while WikiProject Freemasonry is active, the only two mentions on the talk page about the portal were a 2008 creation announcement that got no response, and a March 2009 conversation about adding the portal to the project banner, which drew only opposition and a statement that the portal was a "one man show". It's not mentioned by name 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 Freemasonry is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:20, 15 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) (which in this case I think is Portal:Society), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Freemasonry

 * Delete as a portal with too little viewing, too few articles, too little maintenance. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this portal is worthless junk.Catfurball (talk) 23:24, 17 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) 01:32, 18 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 I think it's Portal:Society), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 18 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.