Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mozambique

 __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) 08:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Mozambique


Three selected articles and one selected bio circa 2010, no updates. Selected article number one was written in 2009 as a "test," but apparently doesn't obviously link to any parent article. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for nine years and was never completed, which is why all it's sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials. 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 nine years of no maintainers and it had an abysmal 13 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Mozambique had 3881 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 nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Mozambique is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Mark S and NH12. Another abandoned mini-portal.  Any re-creation can go via Deletion Review.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another long-abandoned bonsai portal, whose selected articles consist of only outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago.
 * WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has attracted only a small number of readers, and no maintainers.
 * I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin. If you close this 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:Africa), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 25 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.