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) 04:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Quran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neglected portal.

Four selected articles last updated in July 2010. One selected bio from October 2015 which has no photo and does not even link back to its article.

Portal:Islam covers this topic better. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - there is a redirect from Portal:Qur'an. The backlinks will need attention if the portal is deleted. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over nine years, save for some one off updates by passing editors, and is 15 articles short of POG's minimum of 20. Since 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Netmonger, who last updated it in September 2010 and last edited in 2018, besides his own user pages. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This decrepit portal has had over nine years of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 12 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Quran had 4,228 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 oppose re-creation, as over nine years of hard evidence shows the Quran is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:04, 30 August 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:Islam), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a book shouldn't have a portal period.Catfurball (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Clear fail of WP:POG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 6 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.