Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Northwest Territories

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) 14:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Northwest Territories

old portal that I have not updated since 2010 and will not be updating in the near future....thus no maintainers with a dead project attached to it. Moxy 🍁 00:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This portal has been abandoned for over nine years 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 nine years of no maintainers and it had a very low 9 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Northwest Territories having 1157 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 nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Northwest Territories is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per analysis by NH12. Only 10 articles, not maintained since 2010. Low pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this portal isn't needed.Catfurball (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a long-abandoned mini-portal, whose selected articles consist of only 4 outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago.

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 has attracted only trivially small numbers of readers, and no maintainers.

I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 20 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.