Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Manila

 __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) 03:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Manila


Abandoned mini-portal on the Philippine city of Manila.

Created in October 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: Ace Mendiola's last edit to this portal was in December 2011, and their most recent edit to any page on en.wp was in 2014.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Manila shows a modest collection of sub-pages:
 * 3 selected pictures. Portal:Manila/Selected picture/1 and /2 were created in October 2010‎ Ace Mendiola. Portal:Manila/Selected picture/3 was created in April 2019, and /4 and /5 are blank.
 * only 5 selected articles, all created in October 2010‎ by Ace Mendiola

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 Manila and its navboxes Template:Manila and Template:Metro Manila.

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 one of these links to Template:Manila and Template:Metro Manila, 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 Manila, 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 ten years, and it has abysmal page views. In Jan–Feb 2019 it got an average of only 3 pageviews per day, a mere fifth of the abysmal median for all portals of 15 views/day and a risible 0.12% of the 2,560 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 5 articles, a mere qaurter 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) 21:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - BHG's analysis speaks for itself, but the figure of only 3 average daily pageviews also speaks for itself. Only rarely do even very large cities attract either a large number of readers or a portal maintainer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 4 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.