Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sialkot

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 17:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sialkot


Abandoned portal, with one empty section (news) and two redlinked sections (administrative divisions and topics). Portal is nearly ten years old, and was an accessibility disaster for the first 9 years or so (barely readable colour combination), so reverting to an older version is not really helpful here. Fram (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Aside from being poorly done, this portal also fails WP:POG. –eggofreason(talk &middot; contribs) 14:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and topic ban the fans that keep telling us this garbage is helping readers and self maintaining. Legacypac (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as an abandoned portal as per nominator. Also as a small-city portal, but this predates the reckless creation of portals and just illustrates that there have been badly maintained portals forever.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or allow recreation if deleted - the topic itself clearly passes WP:POG, if this gets deleted on poor maintenance grounds I have no problem if someone wants to adopt it. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In all these cases of portal MfDs, improved recreation is allowed (if the topic meets the accepted portal guidelines, if we have any that are broadly accepted). But keeping an unused, unmaintained portal with problems is rather pointless. Fram (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've sorted the redlinks. There are a number of selected articles, there's nothing clearly wrong with this portal now. SportingFlyer  T · C  08:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But what's the point? Why spend maintenance on something no one bloody cares about for the ten years it existed? Fram (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not entirely abandoned, there have been maintenance edits on it over the years, and it passes WP:POG. Why fall back on WP:WEDONTNEEDIT? SportingFlyer  T · C  09:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maintenance edits which did nothing to correct these problems (excluding your edit of course). Most of these edits were just part of maintenance runs, not someone actually looking at this portal. The POG states things like " The portal layout should be complete or there should be ongoing efforts to make the portal layout complete. " (not true for ten years). "The portal should be maintained and serve a useful purpose. " Again, obviously not the case. " enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section." Um, there is one selected article, Sialkot Cantonment, which is a stub with a "more refs needed" tag. Again, POG not met. So no, it doesn't meet the POG, even though that is a pretty low bar to set. Fram (talk) 09:22, 4 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.