Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Thiruvananthapuram

 __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) 01:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Thiruvananthapuram


Delete not a very important city even in the perspective of India, which has not so many related articles, daily visitors also very insignificant. Reza (talk) Miscellany for deletion/Smaller city portals Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Timestamping UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – As per my analysis at
 * Comment – The only analysis at the discussion linked above is a page view comparison. The notes section states, "Not analyzed in detail." A reason the portal receives relatively few page views is likely correlated with the low amount of links to the portal present in main namespace articles. As of this post, there are only 53 links to the portal in main namespace articles. More visible links = more page views, and less visible links equates to lesser page views. No offense is intended in this post; it's just an observation and some opinion regarding page views. North America1000 02:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:POG in terms of overall topical scope, although perhaps on a weaker level. The portal is functional, and would benefit from expansion. Page views can be improved by adding links to the portal in various articles. More visible links = more page views. North America1000 02:43, 30 May 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) 14:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Northamerica1000 - I don't understand. You appear to be saying that there should be more cross-namespace redirects from article space to Portal:Thiruvananthapuram, which is of course in portal space.  The policy on cross-namespace redirects says that redirects from article space to spaces other than Wikipedia space, category space, template space, and portal space may be speedily deleted.  It also says that redirects from article space to Wikipedia space are controversial, and there are reasons to keep them and reasons to delete them.  It is silent on redirects from article space to portal space.  So the question is:  What is the intended purpose of your proposed redirects from article space to portal space?  To increase the activity of portal space?  Why?  That seems like a form of busywork.  (I once had a co-worker who would refer to a work project that appeared to justify itself, but didn't really, as a self-licking ice cream cone.  Sending readers off to portal space from article space sounds like an ice cream cone that licks itself.)  The portal is very seldom viewed, so are you saying that we should send readers off to view something unnecessary in order to generate pageviews?  Please explain.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that the portal could use more WP:LINKS to it in articles using, which creates the link to the right. These are not cross-namespace redirects, they're valid and viable links to let readers know about the presence of portals. When readers don't see links to the portal, they don't go to the portal, and may not even know about its presence. North America1000 00:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Northamerica1000 - I think that I perhaps understand now. You are proposing to put See also Portal:Thiruvananthapuram into articles.  So then editors can follow the link to the portal, and use it to navigate to other related articles.  I see that what this does is to use the portal as an intermediate stop on navigation.  I don't see how that gains them anything that they couldn't get by following links from the article or by looking up categories and then following them to articles.  It is just an alternate device for navigation.  How is this better than just improving the links and categories?  Yes, it increases the views of the portal.  So what?  Unless the portal provides a significantly better miniature main page than the article, it just increases the portal views in order to increase the portal views.  If the portal isn't being viewed much, and it isn't, then that is because the editors are going directly to the main article and then to related articles.  Why send them through the portal?  More links is more page views, yes.  But it is views of articles that provide the information to the reader that they came to the encyclopedia to look for.  I think I understand now.  It is an exercise in making the portal look better because you like portals, rather than to provide information to the readers.  You are proposing a self-licking ice cream cone.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem against the concept of having a portal for the topic from the start, so naturally you don't see the value in links to the portal, which would increase page views. There is no offense intended here; just an observation regarding what appears to be your stance. In my view, the portal can be significantly expanded and improved, but if it's deleted, then the entire framework for doing so is gone, making the work much more time-consuming, because it takes much more time to start from scratch. The idea is to learn about different topics using content within the portal itself, and links are also provided to go to main topic or image pages. North America1000 02:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Northamerica1000, regarding the last sentence of your comment above (presumably "different topics" refers to subtopics of Thiruvananthapuram) isn't that things that the article already does (probably better than the portal)? DexDor(talk) 17:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 26 subpages, created 2018-06-15 12:30:30 by User:AG47. Never went alive. The portal can be significantly expanded and improved is the usual fallacy. This draft could, perhaps, have been expanded, but was not. And now, this abandoned thing is only luring the reader, by pretending to be a navigation tool while not being one.  Portal:Thiruvananthapuram. Pldx1 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments – I will make the following additional arguments in support of my Delete argument above:
 * This appears to be a single-navbox portal. Portals in general are no longer as useful as they were prior to the introduction of two related new features as described at WP:The Problems with Portals, but single-navbox portals are particularly dominated.
 * Even if the insertion of links back from the article or articles to the portal were to increase portal views by a factor of three, that would increase daily pageviews from 7 to 21, which is still not considered sufficient to warrant a portal.
 * Single-navbox automated portals serve no purpose that is not served just as well by the navbox itself.
 * Delete as not a broad subject (a subtopic of Kerala, which is a subtopic of India, which is a subtopic of Asia ...). Keeping portals like this may encourage other editors to (waste their time) by attempting to create portals for other cities. DexDor(talk) 17:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator:
 * Narrow topic which fails 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". City portals rarely attract either, and this case is no exception. It has not attracted maintainers, and even its creator AG47 last edited it only a month after it was created. And in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 7 pageviews per day.
 * WP:POG requires that portals have "a bare minimum of 20 non-list, in topic articles". But this has only 3 articles and 6 biogs, a total of 9 which is less than half of the bare minimum.
 * In any case, 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).
 * 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:Thiruvananthapuram, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
 * 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 Thiruvananthapuram, 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.
 * These new features set the bar very high for any portal which actually tries to uphold the core principle of WP:PORTAL: that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". This abandoned micro-portal is just a first draft of an outdated model of portal, and it comes nowhere near satisfying that principle. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 4 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.