Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burlington, Vermont

 __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. I find particularly poignant the argument (via and echoed by others) that when it comes to portals for small places, while there may be plenty of relevant articles the narrow focus works better as an article format.

Fun town, though! ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 01:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Burlington, Vermont

 * — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Capital of the state but only 42,000 people means does not have enough scope for a portal. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Burlington is the largest city, not the capital. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 21:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My error. Not being a capital is another strike against a portal here. It is a pretty small place and not large enough to warrent s portal. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a hopeless topic (fairly interesting among cities of this size), but a terrible portal. Delete with no prejudice against recreation of a better version. Note that the city article itself has many galleries and works far better as a navigational tool. —Kusma (t·c) 10:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The creators are unlikely to fix it since they were "racing against time" to create as many poorly done portals as quickly as possible. Legacypac (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: city-level and higher regional portals are all viable by their very nature. I'm opposed to keeping neighborhood ones, as drilling down too far.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, city-level portals are unnecessarily fine-grained and do not provide any useful navigational or organizational service to the reader not already provided by the article itself and the navbox. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – Expandable per content available at Category:Burlington, Vermont. North America1000 16:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with PMC that city-level portals are unnecessarily fine-grained. The reason for creating them was presumably precisely that it permitted the creation of a much larger number of portals.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Individual small cities do not meet WP:POG's breadth of subject area requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:19, 10 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.