Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Manitoba

 __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. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 14:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Manitoba


Stillborn portal. Four selected articles, four selected bios, and four pics. The selected bios have remained unchanged since 2007, and the selected articles have remained unchanged since 2010. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a viable tool for reader navigation. Optionally, MOVE to WikiProject Manitoba/Portal as an editor resource. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Will work on this on the weekend ..easy fix -- Moxy 🍁 11:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC) ....will start nominating related portals as its all the same.-- Moxy 🍁 00:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One off maintenance means nothing, which is what you did nine years ago when creating this portal, which you then left to rot to this day. To be an asset to Wikipedia, this portal would need a large team of maintainers and a large number of readers, but nearly a decade of hard evidence shows this topic isn't broad enough to make that happen. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This portal has been abandoned for over nine years and was never completed, which is why all it's sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials, including 37 individual red links on the biography sub-page. 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 a very low 11 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Manitoba having 1792 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 this vast but sparsely populated (for its size) region is not broad enough to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete concurring with nomination and with analysis by User:Newshunter12. If another editor wants to re-create this portal, they know that Deletion Review is to the left.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this portal isn't needed.Catfurball (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a long-abandoned portal, which should have been deleted long ago.
 * When I was checking the sub-pages to verifying the nominator's claims, I found that Portal:Manitoba/Selected article/1 is Manitoba, which is of course the article used for the intro. The failure of any editor in the past decade to remove this duplication is an illustration of the depth of abandonment.
 * I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that readers don't want to read this portal, and editors don't want to maintain it. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 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.