Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dhaka

 __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) 03:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Dhaka


Abandoned-since-2010 mini-portal on the city of Dhaka, capital of Bangladesh.

Created in March 2010‎ by. The lead of WP:POG has said since late 2006 "Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance", but that has not happened here: Tanweer Morshed's last edit to this portal was on 23 March 2010, (only 4 days after the portal was created) and their most recent edit to any page on en.wp was in 2017.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Dhaka shows a modest collection of sub-pages:
 * 3 selected pictures and 6 selected panoramas
 * only 3 selected articles, all created in March 2010‎ by Tanweer Morshed
 * 2 DYK pages, both created in June 2013
 * Portal:Dhaka/Did you know/1 showcases History of Dhaka, was a which was a DYK in September 2006
 * Portal:Dhaka/Did you know/2 showcases University of Dhaka, was a which was a DYK in September 2005
 * . 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 pair of 13-year-old entries loses the newness, so their only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.


 * Portal:Dhaka/In the news is just a transclusion of Portal:Dhaka/Dhaka news/Wikinews ... which has not been edited since it was created in 2010. Its two items are dated February 28 and November 28 ... but when you follow the links you will find that this is February 28 2009 and November 28 2009.  This abandoned portal is actually displaying ten-year old "news", without any warning to readers that it is a decade old.

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 Dhaka and its navboxes Template:Dhaka.

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:Dhaka, 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 Dhaka, 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 portals 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 8 pageviews per day, a mere half of the abysmal median for all portals of 15 views/day and a risible 0.42% of the 1,918 daily views for the head article.
 * WP:POG requires that portals have "a bare minimum of 20 non-list, in topic articles". But after nine years, this has only 3 articles, a mere 15% of the bare minimum.

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.

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) 01:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The figure of 3 articles (as compared to a minimum in the guideline of 20) is itself a sign that this portal has not been maintained and is not likely to be maintained, and is barely enough to avoid speedy deletion. I concur with the analysis of BHG.  Only very rarely does a city portal attract more than 20 daily pageviews.  (The country, Portal:Bangladesh, gets 36.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 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) 13:09, 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.