Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cincinnati

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. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 07:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Cincinnati

Unmaintained portal. There are an underwhelming four Selected Articles, six bios, four selected attractions and four sports pages - all of which have not been substantially updated since 2008, when they were created. This has resulted in some inaccuracies such as the claim that the Cincinnati Bearcats belong to the Big East Conference (1979–2013).

The selections being showcased are also of rather poor quality.Norwood, Ohio is start class. The blurb for the Cincinnati Reds is overly promotional. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I concur with the analysis by User:Mark Schierbecker:
- - The article has 4 daily pageviews (in Jan-Jun 2019), which is even worse than most portals, but may illustrate that portals on cities, even moderately large cities, do not attract large numbers of readers. The article has 2159 daily pageviews.
  - The total of 18 articles does not satisfy the portal guideline, although it is better than some portals.
  - Some editors have argued that regions of a certain size "should" have or are "entitled" to portals. This argument does not appear to have been applied to cities. On the other hand, User:SmokeyJoe has argued that Wikipedia should not have regional portals, because they tend to be promotional. As the nominator observes, the sports articles for this city portal are non-neutral and are boosterish.
  - These articles have not been updated substantially since 2008. The originator created an On This Day feature, but has not maintained it, and has been editing sporadically since then but has not been maintaining the portal. Creating a portal is fun. Maintaining a portal is work. There is no obligation to edit regularly or to maintain a portal, but there is no obligation for the Wikipedia community to maintain unused portals.
  - Experience has shown that medium-large cities do not attract large numbers of readers, or portal maintainers. If a future editor wants to re-create a portal on this topic, either with a failed design or with a modern design, they know where Deletion Review is.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boosterism indeed. Cities, regions, nations, if the content is not tied to sources, if not explicitly WP:NPOV and WP:PSTS compliant, it slides into boosterism. I think it is inherently not a good portal, it should not be on a reader-facing page. However, it has a nice history, and had editor value. Delete from Portal space, move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cincinnati/Portal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with prejudice against re-creation. This is yet another abandoned portal on a topic which is simply to narrow to meet 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". Like most city potrtals, this one has clearly not attracted large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 27 July 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.