Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mexico City
- 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 Redirect to Portal:Mexico. — xaosflux Talk 14:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
completely nonfunctional portal, could be easily recreated if someone wanted to actually create one for the city. the portal tag at articles needs to be redirected to the Portal:Mexico, or replaced with the mexico portal tag. why are portals created with no content? how does that help grow the encyc? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment:: Think about why stub articles are kept. Someone can always go around and add to it. That's how Wikipedia works. I don't think that people are more encouraged to create articles if incomplete articles are deleted, so I don't see how deleting this would help. The infrastructure for Portal:Mexico City is there. It just needs someone to actually choose the articles to add to the "Featured article" column... or biographies, DYK, etc. Those can be easily added. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I dont think the rationale for keeping stub articles applies to portals. to me, a portal must start as minimally functional. a stub article may not say much, or be very useful, but the topic is real. since every portal is about an established topic, we could create portals for all 4 million articles if we wanted to. in the case of a "stub" portal, if links exist from articles to it, people will go there and ask "whats this all about?". a person finding a stub article can at least recognize that no one has been able to find, or try to find, more info. with a portal for mexico city, a reader already knows there must be hundreds of articles on it, and not finding them there says something about WP's editing process, in a bad way. however, if consensus is that stub or beginning portals are valuable, i will go along with it. I just wont add links to the portal if im editing mexico city articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- In my view the portal is functional: it just doesn't yet have all of its items. The basic "skeleton" is here, along with the categories, wikimedia links, etc. One can easily add the DYK, News, Biography, etc. sections if one wants to. Part of the reason why I didn't want to fill in everything myself initially: I think other Wikipedians should have their say in building this. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I dont think the rationale for keeping stub articles applies to portals. to me, a portal must start as minimally functional. a stub article may not say much, or be very useful, but the topic is real. since every portal is about an established topic, we could create portals for all 4 million articles if we wanted to. in the case of a "stub" portal, if links exist from articles to it, people will go there and ask "whats this all about?". a person finding a stub article can at least recognize that no one has been able to find, or try to find, more info. with a portal for mexico city, a reader already knows there must be hundreds of articles on it, and not finding them there says something about WP's editing process, in a bad way. however, if consensus is that stub or beginning portals are valuable, i will go along with it. I just wont add links to the portal if im editing mexico city articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Portal:Mexico per nom. Harrymph (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2014 (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.