Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Udaipur

 __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) 01:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Udaipur


Delete small city, few articles, visitors also very limited.Reza (talk) Miscellany for deletion/Smaller city portals Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Timestamping UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – As per my analysis at
 * Comment – The analysis at the link directly above only provides a page view analysis, with the notes section stating, "Not analyzed in detail." As of this post there are only 8 links to the portal in article namespace. This is very likely why the page views for the portal are low. More visible links = more page views, and less visible links = lesser views. This comment is an observation and opinion regarding page views, and no offense is intended. North America1000 02:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 37 subpages (7 articles + 4 bio), created 2015-08-10 20:58:02 by User:Avgr8. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Page views is only an argument to explain why nobody will ever come to develop an object without readers. Portal:Udaipur. Pldx1 (talk) 22:08, 31 May 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 Avgr8  last edited it only a year 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 4 articles and 4 biogs, a total of 11 which is barely over 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:Udaipur, 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 Udaipur, 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) 23:56, 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.