Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Reykjavík

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 . — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Reykjavík[edit]

Newly created portal a minute that overlaps Portal:Iceland The capital region contains 65.5% of the population of the whole country so removing Portal:Reykjavík from the scope of Portal:Iceland makes no sense. Great city, stupid expensive to visit, but does not need a portal. See also my rational at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pristina Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I find a lot of portals to be of minimal use, this one deals with a city qua city while the Iceland portal deals much more with history articles. Sufficient difference that I am inclined to keep this one. This is nowhere near the level of permutation and combination that "countryA-countryB relations" had years ago. Collect (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It's a capital and largest city in Iceland, but of course the topic is narrow but need improvement and it's good for WP:POG -- Happypillsjr ✉ 03:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you created this. Please explain why this is not massive overlap with Portal:Iceland? Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The portal as it stands currently has basically no content on it and seems to be mass generated. I would agree that a capital or large city having its own portal is fine if it's properly designed and maintained, however, this portal is neither. If someone down the line decides they want to construct a portal for the city they can, but as of right now in its current state this is just more navbox portal spam with no value, and should be deleted. Meszzy² (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't need 200 portals for all 200 national capitals, even if they are specially designed, and this one is not, and was simply one of the less absurd subjects in an absurd wave of reckless portal creation by the portal platoon. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote BHG on a similar case "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." Legacypac (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-11-28T05:59:50Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Reykjavík. Pldx1 (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is one of the very worst microportals I have seen:

It is based solely on Template:Reykjavík, which redirects to Template:Districts of Reykjavik City. As such as it offers no benfit beyond the navbox, and in every respect it is significantly less useful 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 far better as a navigational hub
The theoretical scope of this portal as built only 11 articles, that being number of blue links on the navbox Template:Districts of Reykjavik City. However, of the the districts listed, one (Miðborg) is a redirect to the stub article Reykjavík City Center, and 8 of the remaining 9 articles are stubs. The only non-stub district is Breiðholt.
Because portals don't display stubs, the "Selected general articles" list contains only one article: Breiðholt.

This is utterly useless. It wastes readers time by luring them onto a navigational page which provides no navigation.

These flaws should have been absolutely clear to @Happypillsjr when they created the portal in Sept 2018. Neither Template:Reykjavík nor Template:Districts of Reykjavik City have changed since the portal was created, so the flaws now were there at the start.

Yet instead of having the good grace to says "oops! my bad", Happypillsjr advocates keeping this portal, claiming that it is it's good for WP:POG. This is nonsense: POG requires portals to be about broad subject areas, which even Happypillsjr acknowledges that this is not. And not even the most diehard portalspammers have ever actually advocated POG should support keeping portals with only one page in the "Selected general articles" list. The fact that Happypillsjr still displays such appallingly poor judgement about the topic would be very good grounds for a topic ban from portals.

It may be that a skilled editor could amass a sufficiently broad topic list to make a viable portal for Reykjavík. However, it has a population of only 129,000, which make sit it a fairly small city by global standards, and that 129k is 37% of the total population of Iceland. Unless Wikipedia's coverage of Reykjavík and the rest of Iceland massively expands, there is nowhere near enough material to justify two portals. There are currently only 3 FA-Class Iceland articles and 23 GA-Class Iceland articles, so there is no point in chopping up that small set into microportals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to this city which imperceptibly blends into adjoining cities in the capital region. The capital region holds 2/3rds of the population in the whole country. Many of Happy's portals have been deleted and I expect the rest will be too once we get to them. The quality/uselfulness level is on average even below those of TTH from the one's I've looked at. Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reason why this can't be covered by Portal:Iceland. Lepricavark (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A real service to readers whould be to merge the neighbor stubs into the parent city article. This is a very small but spread out town and there is not a lot to say about the part where the IKEA is or the part you find north of the highway vs south of the highway etc. Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 12 April 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.