Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amsterdam

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Amsterdam


A good topic for a portal if portals are needed but it was so incomplete before TTH built an auto portal on top of the title that he first tagged it WP:P2 for speedy deletion. So it's no better than the portals we are deleting complete with conditional auto DYK and scrapped content. There is nothing reasonable to roll back too so that is not an option. No one has shown interest in building a hand curated portal for this city and no content here is unique to the portal so no reason to retain. Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Which portals would be the best examples of ones that are being deleted? Amsterdam is a well-known world city (and official Netherlands capital although in reality The Hague has the government buildings), and we should keep portals like Paris, London, etc. FYI WhisperToMe (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * was this ever a working portal? If so the best solution would be to revert to the version from when it was working and when it hadn't been replaced with TTH's automated version. Looking at the old versions produces a load of redlinked transclusions of pages which don't have deletion logs It's a perfectly good portal topic though and I'd be happy to restore some pages if we can get it back into working order.  Hut 8.5  22:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help out too! I visited Amsterdam and found it was a beautiful city! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral under the circumstances, but if the portal is kept to allow it to be unbroken after being broken, then there should be no prejudice to a new nomination in 60 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment  - Old portal, 14 subpages, created 2012-10-12 04:38:01 by User:WhisperToMe. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Reminder: a maintainer is someone or some Project who a least puts her name in the Portal maintenance status line. Portal:Amsterdam. Pldx1 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * By Nov 2018 they had converted or mostly converted 1400 out of 1500 old style portals to be automated. This was one. In many cases the disease was poor quality and lack of maintenance. Unfortunately the cure of automation had unfortunate side effects that turned the pages into junk. There is no sanctity of life for Webpages and sometimes they just need to be put out of their misery when the mainspace solution is widely successful and the portals fail across the board. Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not false ! But if someone wants to resurrect this portal and maintain it, it seems only fair to let her (generic gender pronoun) try, since Amsterdam is a 'not so small' topic. Pldx1 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was making a general comment about the portal, not disputing anything you posted. I actually agree with you. Legacypac (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Close call, but not in the same league as Portal:New York City or Portal:London: falls short of the breadth-of-subject-matter requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The guidelines say "A portal helps to browse on a particular subject, hence the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content." Knowing the vast history of the city (Anne Frank), the discussion of the entertainment/vice industries, and its status as the Netherlands' commercial center (as well as the de jure capital) it should very easily pass this guideline. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Amsterdam is a well-known world city. Great reason to keep Amsterdam, the town itself. A portal helps to browse on a particular subject. Great reason to delete this portal, that, in its present state, helps nothing. Pldx1 (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One thing I would like to see is a much easier process of creating portals. I'm okay with deleting and starting anew if portals were easier to build. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @WhisperToMe, I would like to see a vastly harder process of creating portals. Very few portals come anywhere near the Per WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", and if it was harder to create theme we'd have much less of the unused, mediocre-to-poor junk which fills portalspace. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WhisperToMe, you are right. And now, the main question is: how to maintain up-to-date snippets in the long term. From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Portals, it appears that difficulties are not technical (at least, not that much). Bad pronostic. Pldx1 (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time.
 * This is another illustration of the persistent problem with older portals. Old-style manual portal was under-maintained, and not well updated.  So it was converted to an automatic format, which being based on a single navbox, is just a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the navbox and of the head article which transcludes it.
 * So even tho this portal is nearly 7 years old, there is nothing decent to revert to. No portal is better than this portal.
 * Yes, I am aware that Amsterdam is an ancient city and a major city of a developed nation. WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Amsterdam is clearly a broad topic, but there is no clear community consensus either way on which broad topics should have portals. The head article is a Level-4 vital article, i.e. it is in the 1,001–10,000 range of priority topics, which seems to me to be a marginal set. As of now there 2,826 portals, of which 1,562 are being discussed at MFD, leaving only 1,305 whose existence is curently undisputed. So it seems to me to be unlikely that community has the resources to extend portals far (if at all) into VA-4 topics.  (For a live count of currently-existing portals, see Category:All portals, live population count=).
 * Despite my own scepticism, I do not want to prejudge the outcomes of any RFCs which define more precisely which portals the community does actually want. So I propose that this portal be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.