Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Newar

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) 02:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Newar

Abandoned draft portal from 2006, converted to an automated portal based on a single navbox.

This portal is currently[1] an automated portal which draws its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox Template:Newar. That makes it just a bloated and redundant fork of the navbox. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

This was previously an old-style manual portal with subpages: see e.g. the version from 12 August 2018[2].

However, as can be seen at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Newar, it never got beyond the draft stage: one selected article, one selected picture, and one DYK page, all of which had only minor tweaks since 2006 or 2007. So it was just a static page.

The head article Newar people and the navbox Template:Newar offer much better navigation and better topic sampling than either version of this portal. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", and there is nothing enhanced about this. This portal does no service to readers.

I don't know this subject area at all, so I make no judgement either way on whether it is broad enough to potentially meet 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" ... other than to note that so far it hasn't attracted either maintainers or readers: in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 6 page views per day, which os only half the abysmal median rate for portals of 12 pageviews per day.

So I propose that these pages (and their subpages) be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another heritage portal by an inactive editor, since upgraded-downgraded to an automated version. These portals add no value. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I meant delete above. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:09, 8 May 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.