- 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) 03:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Airports
Poor-quality automated portal on a marginal topic, based on a subset of a single navbox: {{ Commercial air travel}}.
Airport is only a Level 4 Vital article, i.e. in the 1,001–10,000 range of priority topics. Given the very poor shape of many higher-priority portals and the neglect of this portal since its creation in September 2018, there is no reason to expect an influx of editors to curate and maintain it.
This consists solely of a DYK section with one trivial item and a "selected articles" list which is built on an embedded list of only 15 pages:
These are the 15 items in Group6 of the navbox Template:Commercial air travel, which is transcluded in the head article airport. Though note that the list was copied so sloppily that two of the 15 items ( Boarding and Gate) need disambiguation.
Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced "Main Pages" for specific broad subjects" ... but this is a significantly degraded version of main page for the topic.
Readers already vastly prefer the head article. In January–March 2019, the head article got 1,098 pageviews per day, but the portal got only 11 pageviews per day.
Readers will be much better served by us having no Airports portal. Just delete it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
_(B-II-m-A-18675).jpg)
A typical airport gate, apparently
- Comment. Airports might well be a viable portal topic, but this portal does a poor job of exploring it. I do like the idea of having airports with gates like the one pictured. ETA: I have improved the mysteriously missing DYKs by changing "airports" to "airport". Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete even with fancy tools they can't make useful portals. I would have expected articles about actual airports not pieces of an airport. Legacypac ( talk) 02:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are
nearly 40 GAs on airports, which suggests a portal could easily be constructed.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 02:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- As ever, the gap between
could easily be constructed
and "actually exists" remains vast. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)- Well, the
gluttons for punishmenteditors who care to work on something that's headed for deletion are few and far between. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)- Espresso, if the portals project hadn't spent most of the last 8 months shovelling out portalspam while so many older portals remain in terrible state, the portalspam wouldn't be headed for deletion. If we'd had 40 well-made new portals which genuinely fitted the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", then the climate would be very different to the current situation where about 4,000 pages of driveby spam are being cleaned up by editors uninvolved with the portals project. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the
- As ever, the gap between
- There are
nearly 40 GAs on airports, which suggests a portal could easily be constructed.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 02:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - BrownHairedGirl says that readers much prefer the head article. That says nothing. They always do. Another automated portal with a different inferior plan of automation, as part of a wave of reckless portal creation by the portal platoon. Duh. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-09-22 06:45:44 by User:TTH. Portal:Airports
should easily be deleted
right now, with no prejudice ofcould easily be constructed
by some unforseeable maintainer in some unforseeable future. Pldx1 ( talk) 08:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC) - Delete: well argued nomination, no prejudice against recreation as long as it is well-constructed and properly maintained. SITH (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- No prejudice against recreation as a non-automated, hand-made portal with subpages. Meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines as a broad subject area, which is demonstrated in part by the availability of content at Category:Airports. There's also the Recognized content as pointed out by Espresso Addict above, with 46 airport- and airport-related Good articles. Lastly, I'm against using Vital articles (VA) assessments as a metric for portals on Wikipedia; the selection process at VA is very subjective, often opinion-based, sometimes based upon the simplest of straw polling, and is not reliable or objective. North America 1000 13:43, 24 April 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.
- 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) 03:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Airports
Poor-quality automated portal on a marginal topic, based on a subset of a single navbox: {{ Commercial air travel}}.
Airport is only a Level 4 Vital article, i.e. in the 1,001–10,000 range of priority topics. Given the very poor shape of many higher-priority portals and the neglect of this portal since its creation in September 2018, there is no reason to expect an influx of editors to curate and maintain it.
This consists solely of a DYK section with one trivial item and a "selected articles" list which is built on an embedded list of only 15 pages:
These are the 15 items in Group6 of the navbox Template:Commercial air travel, which is transcluded in the head article airport. Though note that the list was copied so sloppily that two of the 15 items ( Boarding and Gate) need disambiguation.
Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced "Main Pages" for specific broad subjects" ... but this is a significantly degraded version of main page for the topic.
Readers already vastly prefer the head article. In January–March 2019, the head article got 1,098 pageviews per day, but the portal got only 11 pageviews per day.
Readers will be much better served by us having no Airports portal. Just delete it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
A typical airport gate, apparently
- Comment. Airports might well be a viable portal topic, but this portal does a poor job of exploring it. I do like the idea of having airports with gates like the one pictured. ETA: I have improved the mysteriously missing DYKs by changing "airports" to "airport". Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete even with fancy tools they can't make useful portals. I would have expected articles about actual airports not pieces of an airport. Legacypac ( talk) 02:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are
nearly 40 GAs on airports, which suggests a portal could easily be constructed.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 02:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- As ever, the gap between
could easily be constructed
and "actually exists" remains vast. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)- Well, the
gluttons for punishmenteditors who care to work on something that's headed for deletion are few and far between. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)- Espresso, if the portals project hadn't spent most of the last 8 months shovelling out portalspam while so many older portals remain in terrible state, the portalspam wouldn't be headed for deletion. If we'd had 40 well-made new portals which genuinely fitted the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", then the climate would be very different to the current situation where about 4,000 pages of driveby spam are being cleaned up by editors uninvolved with the portals project. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the
- As ever, the gap between
- There are
nearly 40 GAs on airports, which suggests a portal could easily be constructed.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 02:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - BrownHairedGirl says that readers much prefer the head article. That says nothing. They always do. Another automated portal with a different inferior plan of automation, as part of a wave of reckless portal creation by the portal platoon. Duh. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-09-22 06:45:44 by User:TTH. Portal:Airports
should easily be deleted
right now, with no prejudice ofcould easily be constructed
by some unforseeable maintainer in some unforseeable future. Pldx1 ( talk) 08:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC) - Delete: well argued nomination, no prejudice against recreation as long as it is well-constructed and properly maintained. SITH (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- No prejudice against recreation as a non-automated, hand-made portal with subpages. Meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines as a broad subject area, which is demonstrated in part by the availability of content at Category:Airports. There's also the Recognized content as pointed out by Espresso Addict above, with 46 airport- and airport-related Good articles. Lastly, I'm against using Vital articles (VA) assessments as a metric for portals on Wikipedia; the selection process at VA is very subjective, often opinion-based, sometimes based upon the simplest of straw polling, and is not reliable or objective. North America 1000 13:43, 24 April 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.