Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fall River, Massachusetts

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 . ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Fall River, Massachusetts

Only the 10th largest city in the state. Population under 100,000 people. Insufficient scope for a portal. Featured articles include such mundane and predictable things found in most every city: two high schools, an interstate, a mall and the local government building. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets
WP:POG, in part per drawing from an appropriate number of articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Fails

WP:POG as insufficent scope that will not attract readers or editors. This was created in seconds because the editor found a nav box, not but because they have any special interest in the topic or interest in building something useful for readers or interest in maintaining and curating interesting content. I doubt they will even show up to defend it. I doubt they have touched any of the related articles. Legacypac (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete – If we had portals on every settlement with 100,000 people, we would realize the dream of 10,000 portals. Leviv ich 04:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unconvincing minuteportal. No prejudice against creation of a portal that is more than an incoherent random browsing through Template:Fall River, Massachusetts. History, buildings and people are enough for a nice portal, but jumbling them together is just confusing. —Kusma (t·c) 20:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Yet another narrow-focus portal created recently when creating portals has been fun and too easy. No reason to think that this one is needed.Robert McClenon (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this should have been grouped with the other small cities for deletion; I believe Legacypac is making more and more nominations to try to link more noms deleted in his arguments against portals here on MfD. He did it at this one. This portal is useful for navigation here, has plenty of content, well, well more than 20 articles present. $ɱ$ (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly keep your speculation to yourself Legacypac (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, city-level portals are unnecessarily fine-grained and do not provide any useful navigational or organizational service to the reader not already provided by the article itself and the navbox. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:49, 2 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.