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) 14:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stillborn portal. One selected article and one bio, both showcasing start-class articles. Both entries were updated in May 2018, the first time since 2006 that the entries were substantially updated. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This is an exceptionally poor micro-portal, with only two articles selected. The nominator is right to note that both were updated in 2019, but the change was only to replace the content fork with a transclusion of an excerpt from the same article. This was a good update, which ends the problem of content forks rotting, but it doesn't resolve the core problem: that since 2006, every view of this portal has served the reader the same two articles: Apollonia (Illyria) and Marie Logoreci.

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this portal has missed over 150 consecutive updates. That is a catastrophic, long-term absence of basic maintenance.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". We could have an interesting debate about how to assess whether a small and (by European standards) underdeveloped country like Albania qualifies as a "broad subject area" ... but that theoretical debate is moot, because we simply don't have enough editors interested in maintaining the portal.

This is no great loss, because the C-class head article Albania is an excellent navigational hub, and excellent image gallery, and because it's written in summary style it's also a great showcase. The portal is a failed solution in search of a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nom and BHG. This portal has been abandoned for over eight years (aside from a few one off updates in the last two years) and was never completed to POG content standards. 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 eight years of no maintainers and it had a very low 24 views per day in June and July 2019 (despite the head article Albania having 6026 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 eight years of hard evidence shows Albania is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Mark S, BHG, and NH12. Converting two articles from copied subpages to transclusion eliminates obsolete information, but it doesn't change the shortage of articles, which is even worse than for most incomplete portals. Re-create only via Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 17 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.