Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Vienna

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Vienna[edit]

Abandoned bonsai portal on the Austrian capital of Vienna, with low readership. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Vienna shows only 4 biog, 2 articles, one stale DYK page of 6 entries. The portal was created in 2008, and there was a burst of activity in 2011 when sub-pages were created, but it the only one of those 7 pages to have been edited since then is Selected article/2, which had a typo fix in 2014. Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this eight-year-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.

WP:POG 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". However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Vienna has been tagged as "semi-active" since 2011[1]. Its talk page shows that the last discussion (i.e. when one editor replied to another) was in 2012, and even that was only an acknowledgement. So it seems unlikely that any project support is available.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This fails on at least two of the three counts:

? Broad topic. The city of Vienna has a population of about 1.7 million. The experience of data examined at many dozens of MFDs on geographical portals is that regions or cities with population under a million rarely achieve high levels or readership or maintainers, and that several million is needed to get a decent chance of viability.
N High readership. Clear fail. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 12 views per day is trivially low. The 2015–2019 average in only 14 views/day.
N Lots of maintainers. Clear fail. The minimal level of content is unchanged since 2011, and even that was after 3 years of little activity. Since 2011, there has been only formatting tweaks to the main portal page.

So this fails at least 3 of POG's 4 key tests.

It's long past time to stop luring even this small number of readers away from the well-maintained B-class head article Vienna to this abandoned, tiny portal, whose total of 6 pages is only 30% of WP:POG's minimum of 20. Time to just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Austria), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:BrownHairedGirl - Low readership, negligible maintenance. The real measure of whether a portal subject area is broad is the number of articles, and 6 is less than the minimum of 20. With very rare exceptions, even large cities do not support the readership required for a successful portal. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to an abandoned micro-portal. I oppose re-creation, as nearly eight years of hard evidence shows Vienna is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cities don't need portal period.Catfurball (talk) 21:46, 3 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.