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) 00:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Narrow topic, almost unused, redundant to head article.
WP:POG requires that portals be about a "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"'.
This portal is about a very narrow topic: the town of Stamford, Lincolnshire. Stamford is a modest town with a 2011 census population of only 19,701. (The portal is also misnamed: see Stamford (disambiguation), where this isn't even the single most-significant topic)
In January–March 2019, this portal had an average of only five pageviews per day, so it fails the POG test that it should "attract large numbers of interested readers". In Jan–Mar 2018 it was slightly higher; a spike raised the 7 pageviews per day.But both are trivial numbers, barely above the background noise of bots, webcrawlers and Wikipedia editors.
It's easy to see why readers don't use the portal. The head article doesn't have a navbox but it does have lists of many of the major sub-topics, so it is already a good navigational hub. A navbox could make it an excellent hub.
DeleteWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Stamford in 2011 where kept so more time could be given to improve. Since 2011 precious little has been done that is an actual improvement. The strongest argument however is this town is really small, like under 20,000 people small so it fails scope requirements. Most or all areas of England have region portals anyway. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hot damn, a whole five months! All the best: RichFarmbrough, 21:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Actually there have been no productive edits to improve the page since 2011. A lot of messing around trying to change the abandoned portal into something that will automatically break does not count as productive edits. One edit really stands out - where they had to go back to a subpage because there was no nav box to piggy back on. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
I'm not sure why you say it isn't the most significant topic. But that is a naming question, and hence irrelevant to a MfD, it would be a requested move.
Nor am I sure why the amount of viewers currently is an issue. We are not short of disc space.
There is an immense amount of information, both current and historical pertaining to Stamford that belongs in article space. Therefore a comprehensive portal to navigate this material is potentially useful.
Rich I note the low viewing is cos the portal guidelines require broad scope. You seem to have missed the second line of my nomination: WP:POG requires that portals be about a "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"'. Portals are a navigational device, and if readers don't want them, there's no point in keeping them.
As to why not the most significant Stamford, see Stamford (disambiguation), which I also linked for your convenience. There you will see Stamford, Connecticut, whose 2010 census population is 122,600 ... more than six times the little Lincolnshire town. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a small town isn't a "broad topic" as required by WP:POG. Hut 8.5 22:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first MFD involved arguments that seem to me to be arguments as to why an article is needed. We don't disagree on that. They are also arguments as to why a navbox is useful. We aren't at Templates for Discussion. Other than that, there were questions eight years ago about whether a portal was appropriate, and it hasn't been upgraded to the point where it is a useful toy portal or demonstration portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems basically everything in this portal is easily covered in the main article. I also don't see how a 20,000 person town is a "broad subject area". The town doesn't even seem to need a navbox to help with navigation, so why have a portal, which is just a bigger more complicated navigational aid? I do not see anything that indicates this town needs a portal to assist in navigating the articles in its scope. Meszzy2 (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old portal, 42 subpages, created 2010-11-20 17:50:36 by User:Rich Farmbrough. When you click on Selected articles (more), you get 3 articles. When you click on Selected pictures (more), you get 3 pictures. When you click on Selected biographies (more), you get ONE biography. This turns into a joke the assertion There is an immense amount of information, both current and historical pertaining to Stamford that belongs in article space. Therefore a comprehensive portal to navigate this material is potentially useful. Pldx1 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an appropriate topic for a portal. Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 19 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.