Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:New York City

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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. I guess I was a bit too hasty. I'll probably revisit deleting this portal in about a year or more, but as it is now, Robert McClenon actually raises a very solid argument. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:New York City

Stillborn portal.

Though the number of selected articles borderline meets the minimum required count, some selections only have a superficial relation to NYC, such as Clair Huxtable and Sesame Street. (From what I remember from watching Sesame Street episodes as a kid, not one I watched ever mentioned the fictional world taking place in New York City.)
Only maintained by the creator for about a week; they last edited in late Spring 2014. It's been maintained on-and-off since then, but not enough to fix the problems.
Pageviews in the first half of 2019 make up only about .497% of the parent article's pageviews in the same period.

Clearly a more contentious discussion than most portals put up for deletion, but I'd say there's a complicit argument that WP:POG is not met. ToThAc (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep "Stillborn"??? I got this promoted at WP:FPO. Back when that meant something, anyway. Just because I haven't edited it much after I got it where I wanted to get it, we nominate for deletion? Others are still editing it. (I'm not the "creator", anyway.) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you were the creator, FYI. ToThAc (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I misinterpreted that then. I still don't see how it's relevant. This wasn't one of the "mass created" portals. This one has been around since 2005. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The year a portal is created doesn't tell us anything about whether it's suitable for deletion either. ToThAc (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no fan of portals, but I don't find the nomination convincing. DexDor^(talk) 18:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:POG, "A portal helps to browse on a particular subject, hence the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content". Per "helps to browse" I understand that portals are a navigation system and should follow a logical hierarchy and there is no difference between the units of this navigation system. Per this logic ... we decided not have ten thousand portals, we decided not to have portals about cities. Per "diversified content", I understand that portals should not display content identical of the article, which is the case for a narrow topic such as a city.Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A city of over 8 million people isn't diverse enough? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment here. The population is indifferent to defining the topic as broad. What does this portal present diverse from the article?Guilherme Burn (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The portal has a layout error when the Selected article displays the article Roosevelt Island station, I do not consider this a reason for deletion, but it is noteworthy.Guilherme Burn (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at this time, and I don't see the mystical value of portals, but I don't understand what the complaints are about this portal, which appears to be the best I have seen. I am ready to change my !vote when I am shown what the problem is. Part of the problem may be that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:New_York_City shows 20 Selected Pictures, archives of pictures, 20 Did You Knows, archives of Anniversaries including monthly Anniversaries, one Featured Article, and the introductory head article New York City. It doesn't show a lot of content-forked subpage articles. The articles aren't in subpages, and that is good, because content-forked subpages have a rotting problem. If one looks "under the hood", there are 57 Featured Articles and 347 Good Articles and 34 biographies (although the biographies partly overlap the articles). That certainly looks like broad coverage, without the need to get into abstract a priori arguments about the size of the city, because I think that breadth should be measured by article coverage. This portal had 82 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 19, as contrasted with 17169 for the head article. In Jan-Jun 19, the portal had 81 daily pageviews, as contrasted with 16298 for the head article. More than 50 daily pageviews is good for a portal, and the fact that the article is popular should not be held against the portal. I haven't waded through the history to see who is doing the maintenance, and so I can't say with certainty that there are at least two maintainers, but I can see that the work that is supposed to be done by the portal maintainer or maintainers is being done. This portal looks like a good example of what portals should be if there should be portals. Some of the arguments against this portal are plausible arguments against portals in general, but not against this portal. Maybe I have missed something, but this looks like what a portal should be.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.