Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Chittagong

 __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) 01:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Chittagong


Micro-portal on the city of Chittagong, in Bangladesh. Redundant to the head article Chittagong and its navbox Template:Chittagong.

Created in July 2012‎ by‎‎, who has periodically tweaked the portal sibce then.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Chittagong shows a modest set of sub-pages:
 * Portal:Chittagong/Did you know with ten sub-pages. However only the first three have any connection with WP:DYK: /1 (2006), /2 (2008), and /3 (2015).  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 old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA. The remaining items (/4, /5, /6, /7, /8, /9, /10) are nothing to do with DYK, so they are pure trivia.
 * Portal:Chittagong/Selected picture has ten sub-pages (but the head article Chittagong has 20 images)
 * Only 3 selected articles, each displaying the same topic as when created in 2012, and all included in the navbox Chittagong, so they are previewable on any page where the navbox is transcluded.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this set of 3 articles displayed one at a time is massively less useful in every respect than the  head article Chittagong and its navbox Template:Chittagong.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
 * 1) mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead.  So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links.  Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Chittagong, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
 * 2) automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than  a click-for-next image gallery on a portal.   Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Chittagong, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portal fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game:
 * 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 this portal has been unmaintained for 7 years, and it has abysmal page views. In Jan–Feb 2019 it got an average of only 7 pageviews per day, which is a tiny 0.38% of the 782 daily views for the head article.
 * WP:POG requires that portals have "a bare minimum of 20 non-list, in topic articles". But after 7 years, this has only 3 articles, less than a fifth of the bare minimum ... and all 3 articles are redundant.

Maybe someday someone will build and maintain a portal which actually adds value for readers. But if so, they will do better to start afresh, rather than building on these 10-year-old content forks. And in the meantime, it's unfair to readers to lure them to this page which is simply a waste of their time.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 42  subpages, created 2012-07-05 11:18:06 by User:Kmzayeem. Never went alive (3 article!). Nothing to keep. Portal:Chittagong. Pldx1 (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Concur with analysis. 3 articles, 7 pageviews, 7 years of nothing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 5 June 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.