Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Roman–Persian Wars

 __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) 01:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Roman–Persian Wars

 * – (View MfD)

Delete Just-created multi-page portal; no evidence for consensus that it meets the WP:POG guideline's breadth-of-subject-area requirement (base article is a Level-4 vital article). UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi... 1) The portal is still under edit. There are still a lot of battles and biographies that can be added to the portal. 2) The portal is like that of the Napoleonic Wars (since I used that portal as model for the new one), so I think it can be a good one by adding more information. Aryzad (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but if kept should be open for renomination within 60 days, and illustrates the need for WP:Portals for Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Again, Vital Level 4 (and 3 and 2) are a nonsensical classification system. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete  - Automated portal, 26 subpages, created 2019-04-17 20:08:08 by User:Aryzad, to be deleted: Portal:Roman–Persian Wars. Pldx1 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:POG says that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", but a single set of ancient wars is far too narrow. It's only a Level 4 Vital Article i.e. it is in the 1,001–10,000 range of priority topics.  Many portals on higher-level topics are unmaintained and broken, so there is no reason to expect that this one will be an exception.
 * The head article Roman–Persian Wars, with its excellent infobox and its navbox is already an exceptionally good navigational hub.  Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", but this one has a very high bar to cross do better than the fine head article. I see no reason to expect that this will be one of the very rare portals which actually provide a genuinely enhanced version of the head article. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 20 April 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.