Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Santiago

 __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) 06:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Santiago

 * – (View MfD)

Neglected portal. I don't think there's any non-hypothetical reason to believe this doesn't fail WP:POG. ToThAc (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While I do like the way selected articles are listed, the vast majority of them are either Stub-class or Start-class, and I haven't found a single good article or featured article.
 * Inadequately maintained by the creator, who created it about a year ago and was off to a fair start until they suddenly stopped maintaining it around mid-November 2018, with only one edit in February 2019. Other users' maintenance isn't nearly enough to compensate for this.
 * An average of two pageviews per day throughout this portal's entire existence (with a median of one, even) compared to 1317 for the parent article, or .1519%. This is even lower than those of Portal:Houston, a former portal about a city of a similar geometric area that was recently deleted.
 * And finally, this portal has never had any corresponding WikiProject, ever.
 * Comment @ToThAc Please see my vote down below and the associated link. You have the view figures wrong because of a name change to the portal. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:43, 12 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:Chile), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. Too narrow a topic (six months of MfD has shown that sub-national regions hardly if ever are broad enough to sustain a portal), not maintained, and incredibly low readership (4 views |Portal:Santiago per day from January 1 to June 30), which adds up to 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". The portal is not mentioned on the WikiProject Chile main page, has never been mentioned on the talk page and is not linked to the project on the portal's talk page. I oppose re-creation, as numerous failings of WP:POG show Santiago is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because I did pageviews from the time the portal was created to the time of this nomination, not necessarily the first half of 2019 (hence why I said "throughout this portal's entire existence"). ToThAc (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @ToThAc My point was that your stats were wrong because you didn't factor in the name change, not that my stats were the exact replica of what you had been looking for. As |Portal:Santiago this graph shows, from the day the portal was created to Sep. 11, there was an average of three views per day and a median of two. Please amend your nom and try to be more careful next time. It would also be prudent to add links to your page view stats so that others can verify your work. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We all make mistakes, so that's no big deal. But I do agree with @Newshunter12 about the importance of linking to the data source, so that other editors can check the figures and remedy any errors we have made. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not a big deal. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, and oppose re-creation. Low readership (median = only |Portal:Santiago 2/day) + poor maintenance = 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 as the nominator rightly notes, there has never been a WP:WikiProject Santiago. I searched for "Portal:Santiago" in the talk page archives of WT:WikiProject Chile, and there wasn't a single hit. So the WikiProject isn't interested.
 * I agree with @Newshunter12 that cities very rarely make viable portals. Even in the United States (which benefits massively from systemic bias) many portals on major cities have failed and been deleted, e.g. Atlanta, Metro Detroit, Boston, Houston, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Seattle, and Dallas–Fort Worth. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - The issue about the exact number of daily pageviews illustrates that the renaming of portals is often unhelpful and results in an argument between 1, 2, 3, or 4 daily pageviews, all of which are below the noise level that BHG has measured in an esoteric context. The renaming is a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic, which interferes with counting the lifeboats.  The portal is a TTH portal, and so of course has not been maintained.  The number of articles is approximately 70, which is not a problem, but the low readership and lack of maintenance are problems.  Re-creation does not seem useful.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 13 September 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.