Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Neuroscience

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. MER-C 09:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Neuroscience

Abandoned, static micro-portal.

This portal was created in 2006, but appears to have been abandoned in 2012:

The news section (Portal:Neuroscience/News) contains 5 items, the most recent of which was added in 2012
WP:DYK
, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this seven-your-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trvia section.
Portal:Neuroscience/Quotes is wholly unchanged since 2012.[2]
There are 5 Featured article sub-pages. None of Portal:Neuroscience/Featured article/1, /2, /3, /4 and /5 has been edited more recebty than 2010, three of them are unedited since 2006. But none of these unsourced, 9-plus-year-old content forks is actually used in the portal: it just uses Portal:Neuroscience/Featured article, which has displayed the same text since 2008.[3]

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers, and it has also been shunned by readers: in Jan–Feb 2019, the portal got only 35 page views per day, while the head article Neuroscience got 1,081 daily views. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete unless this portal is adopted by an editor in the course of this MfD discussion. This portal is of poor quality and inactive with barely any recent edits. It is more appropriate for us, and more helpful for readers, to remove this portal and for readers to go directly to the relevant article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the analysis by BHG. Tom says that it is better for readers to go directly to the relevant article. That is true, and more than 96% of them already do. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to deleting it. The way I feel about it is very much like what I said at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aquarium fish, and I'm not eager to adopt it. It can always be recreated from scratch the right way when someone is interested enough to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Came here from the notice at the neuroscience wikiproject. It is a shame that these portals didn't catch on. This one is moribund to the point of not being useful for readers and it seems that no one wants to adopt and maintain it, me included. I have no objection to deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:46, 12 July 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.