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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Jane Austen[edit]

Portal:Jane Austen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neglected portal.

• Ten selected articles; of these, only three are of the upper quality tiers (two featured lists, one featured article).
  • Additionally, I could only find eight other selected article candidates, which is pretty slim for a portal.
• Only maintained by the creator fifteen hours after its creation, then in a span of two days after six months had passed since. The following edits were additions and reversions of vandalism, followed by drive-by edits that never maintained the portal as a whole.
• Average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019 make up 15 for the portal versus 5166 for the parent article, or .2904%.

Portal advocates: remind me again how biographical portals can meet WP:POG? ToThAc (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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:Literature and Portal:Novels), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:ToThAc. Narrow topic + low readership + poor maintenance = clear fail of the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". That doesn't exist here. There is no WP:WikiProject Jane Austen, but there is a WP:WikiProject Novels. I searched the Novels Project's talk archives for "Portal:Jane Austen", and got only 3 hits: a notice of the portal's creation, and two MFD notices. So I see no evidence that the project is interested in this portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nom and BrownHairedGirl. Too narrow a topic, not maintained, low readership, which adds up to a clear fail of the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Newshunter12 (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per ToThAc, BHG, NH12 - As of 28 June 2019, when the last bundle was considered and closed, I observed that there had been no maintenance since 2012, and that the portal had 15 average daily pageviews. The portal still has 15 average daily pageviews and still appears to have no maintenance. Re-creation does not appear to be plausible. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – It is a truth universally acknowledged, that if a single person is the topic of a portal, it will be in want of readers and maintainers. – Levivich 04:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Levivich has just won the internet for today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.