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) 15:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Vancouver[edit]

Old abandoned portal with minimal views and no maintainer or project to back it up Moxy 🍁 00:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This portal has been abandoned for over a decade, save for some passing updates by different editors in 2014 and 2018, and was never completed, which is why all it's sub-pages are littered with red links to never added materials. 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 10 years of no steady maintainers and it had an abysmal 11 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Vancouver having 4540 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 over a decade of hard evidence shows the city of Vancouver is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and analysis by NH12. Last significant maintenance was 2015, when an editor added an article class of Selected Lists (which are really articles), bringing it to 20 articles including lists and biographies. That is the guideline-recommended minimum, but the guideline also specifies maintenance, which there hasn't been since 2015. Experience with city portals has shown that city portals, except for the very largest cities (and Vancouver is large but not very large), do not attract enough readers and maintainers. An editor who has a new concept for a portal that does not use forked subpages, will minimize maintenance, and will maximize viewing can click for Deletion Review.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cities don't need a portal.Catfurball (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12 + @Robert McClenon.

This is yet another a long-abandoned micro-portal. It is not tiny, but is abandoned.

I checked the 8 biogs for BLPs, and found that /1, /5, /6, /7, /8 are BLPs. None has any non-trivial update since 2009 or 2010, and several are significnatly outdated. E.g. Portal:Vancouver/Biographies/7 is about Markus Näslund, and says that he "is a Swedish professional ice hockey player with the New York Rangers". He actually left the NY Rangers in 2009, played for a year with a Swedish team, and retired from the playing in 2011, before becoming a manager.

An outdated portal like this does an active disservice to any readers lured to the page, and they damage Wikipedia's reputation. Tine to delete it.

I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is redirect from Portal:Greater Vancouver Regional District. Those backlinks will need attention if the portal is deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of the contributors who got the Portal:Vancouver to featured portal status back in 2007, I do not think any major work has been done to maintain the portal since. While I do not necessarily think much is 'gained' by deleting it, the portal is obviously not being used. Mkdw ^talk 04:11, 22 August 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.