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.
This is another under-implemented, undermaintained, underviewed portal.
Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Uranus shows 912 articles, 3 biographies, and 9 pictures, short of the provision in the portal guidelines for 20 articles. (Biographies are articles. Pictures are not; they are images.) Two of the articles were added in 2014. There has been no apparent maintenance since 2014. During January 2019-February 2019*, there were 14 daily pageviews, which is less than half of a percent of the 3861 daily pageviews of the article in the same period. (*Note: User:BrownHairedGirl has recently changed the usual baseline period for statistics on viewing from January 2019-February 2019 to January 2019-July 2019. I am following her lead but am keeping data that has been collected using the older baseline.) Some portals have subjects that are thousands of kilometers, typically not more than 20000 km, from some editors and so may be close to other editors. The subject of this portal is billions of kilometers from all known editors. The following portals are literally out of this world:
Title
Portal Page Views
Article Page Views
Baseline
Comments
Ratio
Percent
Articles
Notes
Type
Venus
Deleted in second mass deletion.
Space
Neptune
Deleted in second mass deletion.
Space
Saturn
Deleted in second mass deletion.
Space
Outer space
13
1254
Jan19-Jun19
Portal has long history of renaming
96.46
1.04%
Space
Uranus
14
3861
Jan19-Feb19
Last maintenance 2014. 12 articles and 3 biographies, all partial copies.
275.79
0.36%
15
A navbox would work better.
Space
Jupiter
16
5908
Jan19-Feb19
Originator inactive since 2011. Last tweaks 2017. 17 articles and 8 bios, all selected in 2011.
369.25
0.27%
25
A navbox would serve the purpose.
Space
Mars
31
6496
Jan19-Feb19
Originator inactive since 2015. No maintenance since 2011.
209.55
0.48%
9
Space
Stars
34
3021
Jan19-Feb19
Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2015.
88.85
1.13%
44
Space
Moon
37
7516
Jan19-Feb19
Last maintenance 2014.
203.14
0.49%
14
Space
Solar System
65
6496
Jan19-Feb19
Originator last edited in 2007. Last maintenance 2011; news appears to be up to date, but that is view of Wikinews.
Comment to User:Ruslik0 - Biographies are articles, so that is 12+3 = 15. Maybe it may not be difficult to expand on the number of articles, but I can only count the articles that exist, not the articles that might exist in August. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator's analysis is correct: this is a long-abandoned, and almost unused portal. It is redundant to the head article Uranus, which in the first 6 months of this year got 263 times more views than the portal. (670,983 article views / 2,547 portal views).
These sort of numbers can be hard to grasp, so try a few analogies:
For every reader who viewed the portal, five coachloads viewed the article
the article got as many pageviews as there are people in Detroit. The portal got as many views as there are people in the tiny Edenville Township, Michigan.
Uranus pageviews Jan-June 2019Or look at a chart of the pageviews. The portal's 0.38% share is so miniscule that it's barely visible
The 15 articles in the portal are all displayed by unsourced content forks. 73% of them are ten-years old:
2 of the subpages were created in 2011. Since then, neither has had anything other than drive-by minor edits: article/9 and article/10
2 of the subpages were created in 2014. Since then, neither has had anything other than drive-by minor edits: article/11 and article/12
So this is a set of mostly 10-year-old unsourced content forks, whose readership is tiny that if we round off its % share to whole numbers, the result is 0%. Yes, zero percent.
The lead of WP:POG says "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", but in this case the creator hasn't touched any part of it since this edit in February 2011.
WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so the creator is entitled to move on to other interests. But Wikipedia has no reason to keep this abandoned and unused annex. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This portal has attracted no maintainers and no readers. Time to just delete it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik, the overwhelming majority of portals I have checked are in a range from 1% to 0.05%, i.e the head article gets between 100 and 2,000 more views than the portal. This one is near the middle of that range. But in absolute numbers, this one is below even the abymsal median of 17 views/day for all current portals.
Narrow topic portals as a set have failed, tho per WP:POG they should never have been created in the first place. That's why, for the last few months, MFD debates has repeatedly deleted the weaker narrow-topic portals, like this one.
Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But the Wikipedia main page requires huge amounts of work; it is maintained by several large teams of busy editors. A mini-mainpage also needs lot of ongoing work if it is going to value over the head article. And in this case, the portal is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Uranus and its navbox.
Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Uranus, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Uranus, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow
Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portal fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game. Whatever potential value it might have had it 2009, the evidence ten years later is that is a failed solution to a non-problem. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 14 July 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.
