Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cleveland

 __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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Cleveland


Abandoned, static micro-portal on the city of Cleveland, Ohio, in the USA.

Created in December 2005‎, whose last edit to any part of the portal was in April 2006 and who hasn't edit any part of en.wp since 2008.

In November 2018, the portal was converted by @AmericanAir88 to an automated format which drew its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox Template:Cleveland and its image gallery solely from the head article Cleveland. That made it simply a bloated redundant fork of the head article. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

In May 2019, I restored the last curated version.

The leaves a static portal with a tiny set of sub-pages, listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Cleveland:
 * One picture: Portal:Cleveland, Ohio/Featured picture, unchanged since December 2007
 * On article: Portal:Cleveland, Ohio/Featured article, same topic (William R. Hopkins) since April 2006

And that's it. WP:POG says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this portal has missed over 140 consecutive updates.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Cleveland and its navbox Template:Cleveland.

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:Cleveland, 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 Cleveland, 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 portals has been unmaintained for nine years, and it has abysmal page views. In Jan–Feb 2019 it got an average of only 10 pageviews per day, well below the abysmal median for all portals of 15 views/day and a risible 0.52% of the 1,954 daily views for the head article.
 * WP:POG requires that portals have "a bare minimum of 20 non-list, in topic articles". But after ten years, has only 1 articles, a mere 5% of the bare minimum.

I usually propose that abandoned portals be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to re-creation. But given this portal's long history of abandonment, and similar abandonment of dozens of other now-deleted city portals, I think it's better to just delete this portals and all their sub-pages. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concur with the analysis by BHG. No maintenance and poor page views.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – 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) 13:11, 6 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.