Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Monaco

 __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:  no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [confabulate] || 21:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Monaco

 * – (View MfD)

Portal:Monaco is a small portal for a small country, but its level of viewing is too small. The portal has 4 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, while the head article has 7048 daily pageviews (reflecting its status as a tourist attraction and gambling resort). This is a single-page portal, originated by User:The Transhumanist toward the beginning of the wave of reckless portal creation. At least a very small very rich country is a less absurd topic for a portal than some of the portals created by TTH. This portal has 29 articles referenced in embedded lists, so that it doesn't use subpages and doesn't have subpage rot. But it doesn't have large numbers of readers, either, and doesn't really function as a miniature Main Page. There is no evidence of support at WP:WikiProject Monaco or WP:WikiProject European Microstates. Since this already is a modern-design portal, there is no reason to re-create it with a better design. The design isn't the problem; the lack of readers is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Here we have a good page which few readers visit.  The solution is not to delete the good page but to make it more visible, or simply to leave it alone where it benefits 1400 readers a year and harms no one.  The lack of pageviews may be because the portal has just 59 incoming wikilinks from articles, mostly from backwaters such as List of mayors of Monaco and Treaty of Tordesillas (1524) and located in the footer of a navbox at the bottom of the page, and is excluded from searches.  For comparison, the article Monaco has 11,609 incoming links and is included in searches. Certes (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Certes WP:POG requires portals have large numbers of readers, while this has almost none. 4 views a day is a pure background noise of search bots and accidental clicks, if there even are any accidental clicks. Portals don't have their own content, and at 0.06% of the daily views of the head article, this one clearly adds no value to exploring the topic of Monaco on Wikipedia. It would take nearly five years for this portal to have the total number of views the head article gets in a single day. There is no evidence that adding links has ever increased any portals viewing rate, so please stop trotting out a fake talking point. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I really wish that portal fans would stop flogging that poor dead horse of "excluded from searches". I thought that it had been laid to rest long ago.
 * It applies to all portals. It's no reason to make an exception of this one.
 * If you want to propose that it be changed, then go right ahead and open an RFC. I for one will vigorously oppose it on principle, because a search for articles should return articles.  The search should not include categories, template, portals, files, or any other namespace.  But go on, open that RFC and see where the consensus lies.
 * A few second's thought or one minute's research would show that it's a daft idea, because portalspace consists overwhelming of sub-pages, most of which are on their own useless to readers (their value lies in being part of a main portal page). To save you that minute of research, here's a search of portalspace for the word city.
 * Anyway, if you wanna pursue the idea, then RFC is thataway. This here is MFD.  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and oppose re-creation per the nom. This portal is about an exceedingly narrow topic and has incredibly low readership (0.06% of the daily views of the head article), which is a clear fail of the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Newshunter12 (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and oppose re-creation, per the nominator. Low readership + trivial pageviews = clear fail of the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".
 * POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal" ... but WP:WikiProject Monaco is inactive. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks?  I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Europe), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, lack of readers is not a reason for deletion. Were the four people viewing the page every day made unhappy by the existence of the portal? —Kusma (t·c) 16:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4 views a day is basically the background of bots, random clicks and editors; the number of readers is likely to be much less. DexDor(talk) 15:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Only having 1 reader per year is not a reason for deletion either, neither in article space nor in portal space. —Kusma (t·c) 16:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and oppose re-creation per similar votes above. It does not benefit readers because it distracts from the article on Monaco. WP:POG requires large numbers of readers; 4 per day is not that. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I do not follow. Would it be better if more than 4 people per day were "distracted from the article about Monaco"? —Kusma (t·c) 05:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if people were significantly viewing it, then it would have some apparent value. But these ghost town portals are just redundant. Why distract the 4, I say. So yes, it would be better if it had many views, and shouldn't be deleted if that were true. I wouldn't have described it as a distraction then, because it would evidently have been an attraction in its own right. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there anything unusual about the Monaco portal which makes it especially distracting, or is this a general point that all portals distract from articles and should be deleted, implying the syllogism that Portal:Monaco is a portal therefore Portal:Monaco should be deleted? Certes (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Small portal with a small amount of views. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closer – The WP:POG page has been downgraded to an information page (diff). Per WP:POG2019RFC, it was determined that "there is clear consensus that the "Portal guidelines" are not, in fact, official guidelines." North America1000 20:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note on POG. It is true that WP:POG has been downgraded to an information page, per the belated closure of WP:POG2019RFC.
 * However, if POG is no longer a guideline, then we apply WP:COMMONSENSE.
 * In the last 6 months, over 850 portals have been been deleted for failing the principles set out in the nomination. Community consensus on those principles is very clear and very stable.
 * Without a guideline, we apply WP:COMMONSENSE. Those advocating "keep" make no attempt to explain why they think is worth keeping a portal on a narrow topic, abandoned by its creator, with no WikiProject support, no active maintainers and almost no readers. The nomination offers clear reasons for deletion; the "keep" voters are simply taking a WP:ILIKEIT stance. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. The nomination isn't very strong, but IMO on balance wp isn't enhanced by the existence of this page. At present the page is ok (ignoring things like some bad formatting, linking to an inactive wikiproject, showing me an article about a footballer who just played for Monaco for 2 years), but doesn't provide much/any benefit over the article (I've seen no evidence that readers like the random-selected-article feature) and is unlikely to be maintained. DexDor(talk) 15:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the only real rationale for deletion here is lack of pageviews, which is not a reason to delete something on Wikipedia. We don't use pageviews as a criterion for deletion anywhere else, and even the deprecated WP:POG doesn't say that (at least not explicitly). The lack of pageviews is likely down to the fact the portal isn't linked to very prominently, even the main Monaco article only links to it inside a collapsed navbox (as opposed to Portal:Geography and Portal:Europe which are linked more prominently). There is no community support for deletion or portals (or anything else) purely on the basis of pageviews, in fact a recent proposal to delete a load of portals just for having few pageviews went down in flames. Countries are reasonable subjects for portals and I'm not seeing much in the way of objections to the content of the portal.  Hut 8.5  17:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keep per now. This portal seems to be a good case of single-page layout. The concept of single-page portals is not entirely bad, it still needs to mature ... or die with all other portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:39, 1 October 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.