Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Smaller city portals

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) 22:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller city portals

The following 3 portals were added by M R Karim Reza (talk · contribs) when the discussion had already been open for 7 days. They have not been discussed, so I have struck them. --BHG, without timestamp to avoid confusing the bots

Delete My own view is is that there are only 20 or so cities that have the combination of size, history, and global impact required for them to meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline, but I don't think the consensus is yet that limited. Between those top 20 and the fifteen nominated hare is a middle ground of larger cities where consensus is still developing. Which leaves us with these fifteen: I DO think there is consensus that smaller cities certainly fall short of WP:POG's required breadth, and so I believe all of these should be deleted on that basis. All of the cities in this nom. have a city-only population under 700,000 (I recognize metro-are populations are larger, but that different basis doesn't normally change global relative rankings that much: smaller is still smaller). Though two were once featured portals, now all fifteen are of course in various states of repair/disrepair and ongoing maintenance. All of these have a next higher (state or country) portal where their subject should be covered instead and that is more likely to get greater page views. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian, note that Portal:Quebec City is already under discussion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Quebec City. Please will you strike it from this nom? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, thanks for the heads up. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Baltimore per all the reasons here. Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (except Quebec City, already struck). WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". These smaller cities are much less likely to attract sufficient editors willing to do the ongoing monitoring and maintenance which is required to ensure that portals actually fill their prime purpose, which WP:PORTAL defines as "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". Without broad enough scope, portals remain underdeveloped and fail to offer added value to readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd hardly consider Baltimore to be a small city. Praxidicae (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why I wrote "smaller": you would certainly concede it is smaller than New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago? UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes but so is Portal:Detroit and about the same as Baltimore in terms of population. So why isn't that on the list? It's still a major US city. Praxidicae (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because that portal is actually Portal:Metro Detroit. I wanted to limit this nom just to cities. But I did accidentally omit Portal:Seattle. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural Keep All as in Close This MFD~~ - ~~This will be~~It was time-consuming for a mathematically oriented editor to assess and will be difficult for a closer to tease out the large cities, medium cities, and small cities. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I personally don't think that large cities should be given any consideration as broad subject areas, because we have seen that they do not attract either viewers or portal maintainers, and they certainly do not usually find one editor who will spend the time to create a miniature Main Page. But since some editors think that some cities are broad subject areas, we should not combine cities of different sizes. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This table summarizes the pageviews for the portals and lead articles between 1 Jan 2019 and 28 Feb 2019 and provides notes.

Delete All - None of these portals have more than 19 average daily pageviews, which are always a small fraction, usually less than 1%, of the pageviews of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A Salvelinus to the nominator for presenting a bundled nomination for this mixed bag of city portals having nothing in common other than being cities. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Portal:Baltimore was in uniquely bad shape a year ago when it was nominated. It was fixed and now has the same limitations and disadvantages as any portal. It should attract a large number of readers and portal maintainers, and should function as a miniature Main Page, which is a labor-intensive effort. It doesn't attract a large number of readers, and none of the other portals do. They should all be deleted, without prejudice to future re-creation under new guidelines, but with the understanding that a portal maintainer will be making a labor-intensive hobby out of the portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:UnitedStatesian - Please don't create any more labor-intensive portal review efforts for hobbyists. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Per nom. Add nothing over main-article+navbox, and their states of abandonment only degrade the perceived quality of WP in the eyes of a reader. Britishfinance (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question and partial proposal - can any of these be unbundled? It seems a large part of the issue, nominations and deletion support is that no one will maintain xyz. So if someone is able and willing to do so, I think it should have it's own discussion, as is the case for Baltimore, which I am currently improving. The guidance for maintaining portals is, in my opinion, lacking and hard to follow, if it were a bit easier, I'd have been doing this long ago but I've now improved it a fair bit and am continuing to work on it and am requesting as an editor in good standing that it is removed from this MFD. Praxidicae (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: I have struck Baltimore as requested. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side conversation on struck portal

@UnitedStatesian: Thanks. Now if a portal guru could help me figure out how to cycle the DYKs and if it's the same as images, we're in business... Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae. Per 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 years-old list lose the newness, so their only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.

Instead of cycling DYKs, a portal should display only the newest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: I made the change that BHG recommends: the DYK now uses the six most recent entries from the latest 36 months. UnitedStatesian (talk)

@UnitedStatesian: Thanks for the help. I suppose this is actually part of the problem with Portals is that the guidance is...not great. My question about DYK that I've been asking elsewhere (mostly IRC) is if the DYK are based on actual WP:DYK or generic DYK for the portals. Praxidicae (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: Technically it can be done either way, but I think consensus is that the automated + overisght version is superior to trying to build it manually. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a discussion for elsewhere but I feel when trying to revive a portal (and wrt portals in general) maybe building it is a fair bit easier but I'll do whichever way is "right" Praxidicae (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just found this portion of WP:WPPORT's newsletters, and I figured I should share it.

WP:WPPORT Newsletter #012, 15 July 2018

In case anyone was curious how long it took to make these some of these types of portals and why they were made. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - clearly a very narrow topics as small cities don't offer diverse, rich and in-depth content. Portals should be on broader topics with plenty of content to select from which these type of portals doesn't provides. Störm (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Metrics

Another editor has added three Indian cities to the bundle; their names have been added to the top of the list. I am not sure whether cities should be added to a bundle after it has been in discussion for a week. If this bundled nomination is closed on time, then the three added cities should be excluded because they have not been listed for a week. I am including a revised table, showing that the three newly nominated cities each have had only 7 daily pageviews. I have not analyzed the history or structure of the three newly nominated portals, at this time.

Delete all – In the absence of criteria WP: POG for cities and the exclusion of the parent portal Portal:Cities I understand that a portal about only one city is not a broad topic.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further Discussion

put further delete/keep/comments below this line

Delete Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, and Udaipur – Each only has 7 daily pageviews, which is even worse than the usual low level of views for portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Robert McClenon, I have struck those 3 from this discussion. There is no way a consnesus can be weighed in respoect of pages added after a week of discussion. --01:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you, User:BrownHairedGirl, if you are who struck them. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the following portals, which meet WP:POG in terms of having an adequately broad scope:

Portal:Bristol
Portal:Louisville
Portal:Miami
Portal:New Orleans
Portal:Pittsburgh

Also, from spot-checking, it does not appear that any notices regarding this discussion have been placed at any Wikiprojects related to these portals, or even on the article talk pages. This creates a walled garden here at MfD, with this discussion likely being unseen by others (other than MfD regulars) for consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the portals fans' many bizarre attempts at wikilawyering, the claim that that XFD is awalled garden is the most bizarre and ridiculous.

Tagging the nominated pages is sufficient, and always has been. All these portals have been tagged, so the deletion discussion has been flagged up to each and every reader who has visited any of the nominated portals in the 9 days since the discussion was opened.

There is not, and never has been, any requirement to notify Wikiprojects, let alone place notices on talk pages of related articles. Any projects which have any interest in these portals will have tagged the portal with the project banner, and be notified through the article alerts system.

NA1K is an admin with plenty of experience of XFD, so it's shameful to see them making such nonsensical assertions at XFD. Admins have have a responsibility to act with integrity, and labelling valid XFDs as awalled garden is an exercise in bogus wikilawyering which displays a shocking lack of integrity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon NA1k, you are being ridiculous: EVERY wikiproject was notified in the article alerts section OF ITS MAIN PAGE; in some cases MULTIPLE wikiprojects if the portal was in their scope. I have not seen a single !voter come here as a result of such notices; even a subject's most committed editors don't seem to care about the portal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, it appears that User:Northamerica1000 is continuing to argue the fallacy of a priori assertion of a "broad scope". The portal guidelines refer to a broad scope that will attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. That means that what is a sufficiently broad scope cannot plausibly be asserted a priori. We have seen a posteriori that very few portals attract a large number of readers, and that none of the nominated portals have attracted an average of 20 daily readers.

Second, the argument that MFD is a walled garden is silly. (Anyway, the usual way of dealing with a Wikipedia walled garden is to delete the plants.) MFD is a public process. The creation of portals is a stealth process, but the deletion of portals is a noisy process. What method of notification is NA1K saying should have been used that wasn't? Should some new standards for notice be implemented for MFD in the near future? If so, we know where Village Pump is. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - No added value and therefore no readers - no readers and therefore no crowd sourcing - No crowd sourcing and therefore no added value - And therefore the "wait and pray" attitude will remain ineffective. Pldx1 (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all including Portal:Baltimore. Portals are moribund. They never really served their purpose. They are a distraction from project objectives, Portal product being devoid of sourcing are incompatible with the encyclopedia, forking content and providing no unique navigation advantage but while increasing POV vulnerability. Only the very top level portals have possible non-negative value. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 2 June 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.