Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pristina

 __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. I'm sympathetic to the "it's the capital" argument, but consensus here is clearly to delete. A redirect would perhaps not be unwarranted. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 18:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Pristina


Delete Small city (even if now a national capital) is not a sufficiently broad subject area as required by the WP:POG guideline. Portal:Kosovo, to which this Portal is completely redundant, more than adequately covers this subject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the topic is broad enough to pass WP:POG.-- Happypillsjr    ✉    13:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Prishtina is not some minor Kosovan town or city but the capital city of Kosovo and the topic is broad enough to pass WP:POG.Resnjari (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to Portal:Kosovo. Properly-made portals are supposed to present "Main Pages" for broad topics. The creation of sub-portals like this one is actually detrimental to that purpose, because it removes a whole swath of potential topics from the top-level viable portal, decreasing the variety and breadth of its content (ie its utility to the reader). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete  - - An automated portal, created 2019-03-12T09:14:01Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Pristina. Pldx1 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Pristina looked great in the winter when I visited but it is not a large significant city, having a population of only around 200,000 (about 10% of all Kosovo). Portal:Kosovo should cover this well if built properly. In some guideline drafting I was working with was the idea that a city/metro area (and preferably portals are built about metro areas) should have a population of minimum 1 million to justify a portal. When a metro area crosses 1 million there starts to be enough indepth content that it becomes harder to link it all directly from an article on the city or portal on the country. Any country could have a portal and the capital of any country over 5 million in population would qualify for a portal even if the capital otherwise failed to qualify. This would focus efforts on one good portal for places that are city state like that technically have a capital but where the capital and its hinterland are essentially the whole country. For example, Singapore, Brunei, Andorra, Monaco, Kosovo, various Pacific Island nations, Iceland etc. You can't cover Iceland in any comprehensive way without talking about Reykjavik in depth, but you could say a whole lot about Canada while just touching on Ottawa since the capital is only the 6th largest metro area in the country. Ottawa has a metro population just under 1 million. However as the seat of government of one of the world's best countries (proud Canadian here) there is unusual important content not found in most similar size non-national capital metro areas like Austin, Texas. See List of North American metropolitan areas by population for example.


 * Even at a million people, material is not always available to justify a portal. For example I've lived near Toluca but would have a hard time pulling a broad enough Portal together for it. There just not that much worth talking about even though more than 2 million people live there. It is an industrial city with minimal tourism. Everything worth seeing is in two blocks downtown. Boring place. I'm not saying Pristina (or any city) should not have an article, just that portals only benefit the reader over an article when about broad topic that can not be best explored from a good article. Most cities (especially smaller but even larger) don't make the cut between a portal being useful and a portal being a poor substitute for the article.


 * Also this is a one click wonder by a jr member of the portal spam machine. Nothing is lost by deleting it until and unless someone comes up with a hand curated portal on the city. Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as the usual spam. As said, Portal:Kosovo can cover it all right. –eggofreason(talk &middot; contribs) 19:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just another glorified navbox. Its article list is based solely on the navbox Template:Pristina, which works with much less utility than the navbox because: the navbox displays a full list of the articles, but the portal displays only one page at a time; and the navbox should be present on every page in the set. The portal always requires navigation to a separate page.
 * The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes both the topic navbox and any related navboxes, and of course a full article on the topic rather than an excerpt of the lede.
 * I do not rule out the possibility that it might be possible to create a genuinely useful portal for Pristina. But this auto-generated page is not it.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * cross reference Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Reykjavík Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete both for scope reasons and because, like most portals implemented in 2019 or late 2018, it was implemented without thought. Also, concur with comments by Legacypac. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 10 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.