Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sunni Islam (2nd nomination)

 __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. MER-C 11:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sunni Islam

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected portal. This was restored less than a year after the portal was merged at MfD. One selected article, one "selected Muslim." Selected article remained unchanged from c. AD November 2005 until May 2018, when the portal was redirected to Portal:Islam. In April 2019 Portal:Sunni Islam/Featured article was resurrected (not updated; restored) and selected Muslim was automated. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion 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:Islam), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete with a silver bullet. This is a zombie portal.  It was accidentally, in good faith, restored from the dead by User:UnitedStatesian, intending to restore the multi-page version (prior to mass automation), but restored the portal prior to its redirection in 2006 to Portal:Islam.  So this portal is a monster that was created by accident.  It also has only two articles and only 8 pageviews.  In the future, in trying to kill monsters, please do not accidentally create monsters.  We only have a limited supply of these silver bullets.   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, can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, and oppose re-creation. Just a pointless bonsai portal, which completely fails the POG requirements for readers and maintenance. It's ridiculous to lure even a tiny numbers of readers away from articles to this waste of their time. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Metrics for Islamic Portals

 * Delete per the nom and Robert McClenon, and Oppose re-creation. Fails the WP:POG requirements for having large numbers of readers and maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note on pageviews. Thanks to @Robert McClenon for providing that detailed table of pageviews. I thought I would provide a comparator to put that those numbers in context.
 * My comparator is a tracking category which I created back on 7 March 2019: Category:CatAutoTOC generates no TOC, which tracks the usage of CatAutoTOC. It used on 78,000 categories, which is a lot ... but it appears only on category pages, which individually have very low readership.
 * Most of the categories it contains are obscure and narrow categories such as Category:1985 establishments in Cuba or Category:1992 in Kenya, which themselves have trivial readership. Crucially, it's a WP:HIDDENCAT, which is visible only to logged-in editors, and to them only if they have enabled "show hidden cats" in their preferences.  So it's visible only to a tiny percentage of viewers of these low-readership pages, and it's clearly some technical wonkery rather than encyclopedic content.  I thought its view rate might be one or two hits per week ... but no.
 * The actual daily pageview rate is an average of 8, and a median of 6. (The difference is due to two spikes).
 * So this utterly-obscure and almost-invisible technical category gets about the same pageviews as Portal:Sunni Islam, and the other sub-portals of Portal:Islam manage only two or three times the pageviews of the utterly-obscure and almost-invisible technical category. The portal fans should think long and hard about that evidence of the portals' failure. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. What User:BrownHairedGirl has done, more or less as an accidental experiment, is to measure background noise in pageviews, and has found that 8 daily pageviews are noise, and can be discounted in trying to determine how much if any signal there is.  Thank you.  Interesting.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this junk portal.Catfurball (talk) 21:47, 3 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.