Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Belo Horizonte
- 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. MER-C 19:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Belo Horizonte
One click wonder portal part of the nearly mass creation by Happypills. This was batched as a person by accident, deleted -and then restored by request. It is actually a regional centre with a population of 2.5 million to 5.1 million depending on what the scope is here. Of course the portal is so information deficient it does not show the population anywhere on the page. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Population estimate is now there - of course it was only a click away. But one benefit of automated portals of this type is if you improve the lead of the main article you've automatically improved the portal!: Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- And a disadvantage is that any changes to the copied article are automatically copied over to the portal without any edit showing up on the watchlist of the person watching the portal. These can therefore automatically break. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- That last is a fair point: those monitoring a portal need to run through the actual page periodically and not rely on the watchlist. Overall though I find the argument for deletion to be weak: apparently based on (1) the circumstances of its birth, (2) the easily remedied defects (if defects they be) of the linked article. Maybe we want portals of large but second-rank cities and maybe we don't. This and similar questions should be put to the community in due form, not pre-empted by taking potshots at particular portals on MfD based on constantly shifting criteria: Bhunacat10 (talk), 18:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Bhunacat10: There is clear consensus to delete portals that depend on navbox template(s) or similar, as this currently does. Do you plan to edit the portal so that it doesn't? And sign up to maintain it? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- That last is a fair point: those monitoring a portal need to run through the actual page periodically and not rely on the watchlist. Overall though I find the argument for deletion to be weak: apparently based on (1) the circumstances of its birth, (2) the easily remedied defects (if defects they be) of the linked article. Maybe we want portals of large but second-rank cities and maybe we don't. This and similar questions should be put to the community in due form, not pre-empted by taking potshots at particular portals on MfD based on constantly shifting criteria: Bhunacat10 (talk), 18:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- And a disadvantage is that any changes to the copied article are automatically copied over to the portal without any edit showing up on the watchlist of the person watching the portal. These can therefore automatically break. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete if this portal is in fact a one-click wonder, a portal created by a script, and we have already established every time that we have considered such a portal that it needs deleting if there was a proper nomination. If the statement that this portal is a one-click wonder is incorrect, that statement can be refuted either here or at Deletion Review. As it is, we can argue about whether a city of this size is a proper portal subject later. My own guess is that very few cities will be able to find anyone to put on the slide show, but that guess is worth what you paid for it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-11-29 04:53:41 by User:Happypillsjr, useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality: Portal:Belo Horizonte. Pldx1 (talk) 15:57, 26 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.