Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prince Edward Island

 __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 | converse _ 14:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Prince Edward Island


Stillborn portal. Three selected articles, three bios, three pics. None have been updated since 2010. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Will fix it all up ..working on it this weekend -- Moxy 🍁 11:36, 14 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) 17:51, 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. 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 9 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Prince Edward Island having 1768 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 small region is not broad enough to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree will nominate the portals I have created in the same field.-- Moxy 🍁 00:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - I concur with the analyses by Mark and by NH12. Any new portal not using forked subpages can go to Deletion Review.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12.
 * This is yet another a long-abandoned micro-portal. It should have been deleted long ago ... and if the Portals Project had ever even done the basic task of assessing the portals in its scope, it would have been assessed as needing urgent attention. Instead, it's one of the ~80% of portals currently in Category:Unassessed Portal pages.
 * I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one and readers don't want to read it. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this portal isn't needed.Catfurball (talk) 16:20, 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.