Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Islam in China

 __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) 04:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Islam in China

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected portal.
 * Active only in the span of a month in early 2014, and the creator hasn't been regularly active since late 2018.
 * Four selected articles; one is B-Class, two are C-Class, and one is Start-class.
 * Eight selected biographies; none are higher than C-Class.
 * And finally, the average pageviews for this portal per day during the first half of 2019 is roughly less than 1.5% of the parent article's average pageviews per day in the same time period.

Failure of WP:POG? I think so. ToThAc (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This junk portal has been abandoned for over five years, and is at last 10 articles short of POG's minimum of 20 good or importantly topical articles. Two articles are stubs, five Start-Class, four C-Class, and one B-Class. The sup-pages are littered with red links to deleted or non-existent articles, and the DYK's are blatantly fake. Since 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Islam90, who created it in February 2014 and dumped it the following month. Their last edit to Wikipedia was in January. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This decrepit portal has had over five years of no maintainers and it had a very low 14 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Islam in China had 956 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 oppose re-creation, as over five years of hard evidence shows Islam in China is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacking in every area that matters to portals (maintenance, scope, quality). Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:41, 31 August 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:Islam and Portal:China), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Metrics for Islamic Portals

 * Delete Portal:Islam in China as per User:ToThAc and others – Low pageviews, too few articles, no maintenance to articles.  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, can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this junk portal.Catfurball (talk) 21:58, 3 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.