Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Chino, California

 __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. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 01:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Chino, California

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

Only one subcat - people from Chino. We already deleted the portal on the county this city is in because that was too narrow a topic. The article on Chino does a much better job of introducing the reader to this town, including the map that these portals tend to lack. Maps are really important for pages on places. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Much of the sparse content is orange-level tagged or unmarked stub, but more is available under the related categories. However, maps are easy to add to portals. See eg Portal:Massachusetts. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes a few have maps but most I've looked at do not. Quantity over Quality. User_talk:The_Transhumanist Legacypac (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As a map from the article could easily be added, this is not a reason to delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Badly built and no effort to fix is a reason to delete. We've been consistently deleting all the smaller population portals on places because the scope is too narrow.  These smaller pop areas tend to have pages about the schools, maybe state level constituencies, sometimes a highway nearby, all normal predictable stuff found in every town.  The highly successful well trafficed mainspace pages are so much better and that is where our efforts should be focused.  Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: city-level and higher regional portals (but not small towns, neighborhoods, boroughs, etc.) are all viable by their very nature. I'm opposed to keeping neighborhood ones, as drilling down too far. The barely-attended MfD against US county portals was a WP:FALSECONSENSUS error; we actually need those to merge and redirect to, if we don't want to keep portals on smaller cities like Chino.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC); revised 20:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, city-level portals are unnecessarily fine-grained and do not provide any useful service to the reader. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – May be expandable per content in the accompanying category. See the category tree below. North America1000 16:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (Select [►] to view subcategories)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I thought that I had already !voted against this one, but apparently not. What size of municipalities do the advocates of portals think warrants portals?  I agree with PMC that city-level portals are too fine-grained.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 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.