Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Cambridge

 __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) 14:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:University of Cambridge


Poor quality portal. Two selected articles, seven bios and five photos. The selected articles and the first four bios and two photos are from 2009, and have not been updated. The seventh bio was added five years ago. Photos #3, #4 and #5 are from 2013. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for a decade, with a few scattered updates over the years by different editors. 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 a decade of no steady maintainers and it had an abysmal 11 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article University of Cambridge having 2637 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 a decade of hard evidence shows the University of Cambridge is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a university shouldn't have a portal.Catfurball (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per analyses by Mark S and NH12.  This is one of the world's great universities.  The lack of viewers and lack of maintenance illustrates that Wikipedia does not support single-university portals.  If an editor has a proposal for a portal that will have more viewers and better maintenance, Deletion Review is thataway.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12.
 * 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 one attracts almost no readers and almost 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) 15:56, 18 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.