Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kathmandu

 __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) 01:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Kathmandu

 * – (View MfD)

Delete Just-created single page portal using the template. There is no consensus that this portal's subject (a Level-4 vital article) meets the WP:POG guideline's breadth-of-subject-area requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete if I'm reading the code correctly it is pulling selected articles from Template:Kathmandu (which does not exist), and pages linked from History of Kathmandu and Timeline of Kathmandu. The result is three UN agencies are featured articles. They are United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Statistics Division (only because it was linked in a ref) and the main UNESCO page (linked in an article). The UN articles don't mention Nepal and one has a orange box that pulls into the portal. Botanic Gardens Conservation International is another featured page with zero Nepal content that must be linked from one of the two pages.
 * Fortunately for this topic the two articles that the portal is harvesting links from are fairly on point with few links to non-Nepal content, but as those pages change, so does the portal (something the portal pushing TTH extolled as a wonderful feature).


 * However, any article linked from the source pages that meets some criteria can be pulled in as a featured article regardless of appropriateness. I made this pretty innocent edit over at one of the source pages and now the portal is pulling in newspaper as a featured article. It's just that easy for any random editor to mess up the portal without editing the portal or even knowing it exists. All it takes is adding a wikilink. No one watchlisting the portal will see any activity and the only way to know if the featured articles changed is to scroll through them.


 * This page does not have any DYKs but the page is looking for DYKs from the last 36 months. At least any it finds will contain the city name. This "feature" is why we see all these weird DYKs on various portals. Like the article calls, as soon as someone publishes a DYK that includes the key word, into the portal it goes. Page is also looking for a non-existent WikiProject Kathmandu so that does not show, even though there is WikiProject Nepal, which would be on point, but Nepal does not show because it is not a name match. This is why all the links to dead and stillborn wikiprojects we keep finding.
 * This is an Automatic Error creating code. No portal created with this code or it's variations is safe from being automatically broken by innocent edits on the templates, articles, images and DYKs they draw from. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * WTH? Drawing content from a nonexistent template is an obvious sign that little to no thought went into creating this portal. Delete. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 00:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I thought we had a community moratorium on the creation of all new portals? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What I proposed, and what was accepted, was a hiatus on the mass creation of portals; an editor's one-off creation like this doesn't trigger that. Anyone who wants to restart Portal:Climate, I say please go right ahead, UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought there was a hiatus on the use of the new portal template. There should have been.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. A capital city, population ~one million seems to be a suitably broad topic for a portal, and the Category:Kathmandu appears well populated. The base article is B-class and has no orange-level tags. However Legacypac's experiment shows that this method of construction is simply not viable. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Vital Articles are a nonsensical scheme, but that is not the issue with this portal. Not every national capital with one million people is necessarily a good subject for a portal.  This should have gone through WP:Portals for Creation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete  - Automated portal,  0 subpages, created 2019-04-17 14:06:56 by User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA, to be deleted: Portal:Kathmandu. Pldx1 (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's a mountain of evidence that the community can very rarely sustain portals at this level of topic which meet the WP:PORTAL, principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects".  Most are way inferior, which is why they are almost unused.
 * It would be much better to create a decent navbox for Kathmandu. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 20 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.