Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mining

 __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) 07:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Mining

 * – (View MfD)

Nine selected articles. Six were created in March 2013 and three were created in June 2009. None were ever updated.

The Tumbler Ridge entry should've been updated with the closure of the town's two coal mines, and the population from the 2016 census, which is down 19 percent since 2006. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over five years, and is 11 articles short of POG's minimum of 20. Since late 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 Turgan, who dumped it in July 2009 less then a month after creation, which is also when they last touched portal space. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has had over five years of no maintainers and it had a very low 22 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Mining had 1,322 views per day in the same period). This is a sharp long-term decline from the 44 views per day it had from July 1 to Dec. 30 2015.
 * POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but WikiProject Mining is labeled semi-active, and of the two meaningful mentions of the portal on the talk page, the creation announcement and request for help in 2009 got no response and neither did the 2013 update announcement and request for maintainers. 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 Mining is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Another abandoned portal. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Mining shows 9 articles, forked in 2013.  Low and declining readership (and declining readership appears to be true of portals in general) of too few unmaintained 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, and including a maintenance plan (since lack of maintenance is a problem with most portals), can go to Deletion Review.Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 7 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) 03:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note on backlinks. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if this discussion is closed as delete, I suggest that the backlinks should be removed.  I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), but in this case I think that the nearest portals (Portal:Earth sciences and Portal:Engineering) are too distant to make a good fit. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:58, 11 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.