Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mumbai (2nd nomination)

 __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:Mumbai


Abandoned mini-portal on the Indian city of Mumbai, also known as Bombay.

Created in January 2009‎ 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: Amol.Gaitonde's last edit to this portal was in February 2009.

(Note that a previous incarnation of this portal was created in April 2007 deleted in October 2007 at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mumbai, beacuse it was abandoned.)

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Mumbai shows a modest collection of sub-pages:
 * 6 selected pictures and 2 selected panoramas
 * only 6 selected articles, all created in January 2009‎ by Amol.Gaitonde
 * Portal:Mumbai/In the news and Portal:Mumbai/In the news/Wikinews, which have not been used in the portal since 2013 'cos the news items are from 2006 and 2008
 * There are 10 DYK pages, all created in 2013. Portal:Mumbai/Did you know/1, /2, /3, /4, /5, /6, /7 and /8 all show the same content as in 2013, but Portal:Mumbai/Did you know/9 and /10 are blank. 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 set of 6-year-old entries loses the newness, so their only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.

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 Mumbai and its navbox Template:Mumbai topics.

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:Mumbai topics, 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 Mumbai, 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 16 pageviews per day, only one more than the abysmal median for all portals of 15 views/day and a risible 0.24% of the 6,786 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 6 articles, a mere 30% 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) 03:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concur with the analysis by BHG, again, and will note again that even very large cities very seldom satisfy the portal guidelines of attracting large numbers of readers, or of attracting portal maintainers. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 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) 13:10, 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.