WP:Miscellany for deletion/Some two-navbox automated portals

:{{pagelinks|Portal:Alicia Keys}}

:{{pagelinks|Portal:Hillary Clinton}}

:{{pagelinks|Portal:Indo-Greek Kingdom}}

:{{pagelinks|Portal:International trade}}

:{{pagelinks|Portal:Meals}}

:{{pagelinks|Portal:Riga}}

:{{pagelinks|Portal:Salmon}}

:{{pagelinks|Portal:Space Shuttles}}

:{{pagelinks|Portal:Warsaw}}

These nine portals all meet the following criteria:

1. They are based on two navboxes, both of which are transcluded on the head article for the topic. They are therefore a WP:content fork of the head article, which serves as a better navigational hub than the portal.
2. They have existed only as automated portals. None of them was previously a manual portal, and none of them was previously deleted. So there is no previous version to revert to or to restore from deletion.
3. None of them are trivial topics, but none is a level-3 Vital Article or higher. That is, none of them is even in the top 1,000 most important topics. They therefore fail the WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Seven of these nine are Level 4 VA (i.e top 10,000 topics); one is a Level 5 VA (i.e. top 50,000 topics); and one is not even a Level 5.
4. As shown in the table below, all of them have single-digit daily pageview figures. That fails the POG requirement to "attract large numbers of interested readers".

Two of these nine portals were created by @Gazamp, who has created a total of 64 automated portals, of which 4 have been deleted. The remaining seven were created by the now topic-banned portalspammer @The Transhumanist (TTH), whose lack of good faith is illustrated for example by major rewrites of the portal guidelines at WP:POG without even clearly disclosing the changes is edit summaries, never mind seeking consensus in discussion.

I checked the pageviews for 13/02/2019 – 12/04/2019, as the period when all the portals existed. Each of these portals has a daily average of less than ten pageviews. In most cases the head article gets over 300 times as many views as the portal, the exceptions being the less popular topics where the background noise of Wikipedia editors becomes more statistically significant. Yet again, we can see that readers simply don't want these portals, because they don't need them: the head article is the navigational pub, and navboxes+search does the rest.

From the tenor and outcomes of recent deletion discussions, I do not believe that there is currently a consensus to have portals for topics lower than Vital Article Level 3. However, that question has not been tested at an RFC, and a single MFD should not try to resolve that question ... so I recommend delete all, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on navboxes, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

:add your support/oppose/comments here

• Delete all Useless unpopular crud. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as the others. A bulk nom on creations of some of the other automatic error portal spammers is in order. Their output is only not so bad in comparision to TTH's extreme production of junk. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - These automated portals provide no extra navigational functionality over their two navboxes. This is clear from their lack of use as shown by the stats BHG so kindly collected and presented, showing each portal averages a daily view count in the single digits. Meszzy² (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I am not a fan of portals and these don't seem to have convincing rationales for existance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per G7 for Portal:Warsaw and Portal:Riga - See my response at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/36 more navbox-based portals. Many thanks, Gazamp (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all per all. -John M Wolfson (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all - No evidence that these are useful to anyone as they just duplicate the functionality of the existing navboxes. Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 19 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.