Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jupiter

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. ‑Scottywong| [chat] || 04:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Jupiter

Portal:Jupiter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn portal. All 17 never updated selected articles created from December 2010 through March 2011. Eight never-updated bios created from December 2010 through February 2011.

• Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over eight years. It clearly fails
  WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over eight years of no maintainers and it had a very low 17 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Jupiter had 5536 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Jupiter is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, the portal has been maintained (see History page), 20 views a day isn't low but shows a good steady reader interest level, and the link to any 'deletion discussion' is a red link so as of now this nomination isn't actively listed on the portal. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the easiest way to update each selected article and selected bio is to replace what follows "|text=" with {{Transclude lead excerpt|article or bio title}}. But in the current post-Transhumanist period I have been reluctant to do it. If okay, I can do that now and await approval or disapproval. --Marshallsumter (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Go for it, anything to stop the deletions of portals about continents and planets (Asia and Mars are on the block too) not to mention...the Solar System! Randy Kryn (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the Portal:Jupiter articles have been updated! --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously? So quickly? And that's what all the fuss is about? Thanks. Maybe now this nom can be withdrawn. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the Portal:Jupiter bios have been updated! --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wishful thinking. Semi-automating a portal is not a way to avoid requiring maintainers for portals, which still require regular hands on maintenance to be worthwhile for readers. This one has been abandoned for many years without maintainters and one-off maitnence doesn't make an editor a maintainer. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To the closer, Marshallsumter has fixed what was claimed to be broken, so this nomination should have been closed. The same expertise will hopefully be used by someone at Portal:Mars, Portal:Solar System, and Portal:Asia which are all under deletion requests. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I have a question for the Delete editors, and two questions for the Keep editors. For the Delete editors, is this portal doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information? For the Keep voters, has any last-minute editing addressed the concerns of the Delete editors that this portal is not being maintained and is not likely to be maintained in the future? For the Keep voters, what is the actual value of this portal, as opposed to that of the head article and the related articles? What is the portal actually doing (and has it been doing it for the months or years that it has been neglected)?

The following table compares planetary and solar system portals:

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this portal on another world or worlds, without prejudice to a new portal using a design that does not rely on forked subpages. In an area where knowledge is expanding as rapidly as the astronomy of the solar system, mostly via robotic exploration, providing links to copies of obsolete content forks is harmful and is inferior to allowing readers to view the articles, which are being updated to reflect discoveries. Portals for areas as broad as other worlds are desirable, but not these portals that contain obsolete information. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this portal not needed.Catfurball (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe the deleters have misunderstood the purpose of the portals. I can supply an example of how a likely student would search Wikipedia for information and miss the portals completely! But, the portals serve those who seek out specific sciences! Cheers! --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshallsumter There is no misunderstanding by delete voters. This junk portal has been abandoned for over eight years and gets only 17 views per day, while the Featured Article Jupiter gets over 5,500 views a day and is equipped with multiple rich and versatile navboxes for all things Jupiter and astronomy related in our Solar System. Why would we want to divert students and other readers away from our best content to an abandoned portal? This junk portal is a failed solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marshallsumter writes: "I believe the deleters have misunderstood the purpose of the portals. I can supply an example of how a likely student would search Wikipedia for information and miss the portals completely! But, the portals serve those who seek out specific sciences!" It is very likely true that I, as one of the deleters, have misunderstood the purpose of the portals. I can see that I don’t understand their purpose, and that their advocates are passionate about the need for specific portals and for portals in general. So, can you or someone actually explain to me what purpose portals serve, especially in the context of astronomical portals? Either portals have a technical value that hasn't been explained adequately yet, or perhaps they are supported only because they are technically neat. I may technically disagree with the reason, but I would prefer to understand how I can reasonably disagree with other editors than just to have very little idea why they want portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. We could have an an interesting theoretical debate on whether an uninhabited planet is "broad topic", but in practice the question is moot. Regardless of whether the topic is seen as broad enough, the problem remains that portals need maintainers ... and for a decade, this portal has not been maintained. Unless there is a team of maintainers committed to keeping this portal in good shape for the long-term, it will simply rot again, and continue to lure readers away from an excellent FA-class head article to a rotted portal.

It is depressing to see that in this discussion, like so many previous discussions, some contributors evade the simple and obvious primary question: how does abandoned junk help the reader?

A single drive-by fix is not maintenance. It just restarts the rot on another period of rot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Solar System, or if it is deleted then Portal:Outer space), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others above. Mark for updating. --Hecato (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been abandoned for over eight years and now you want more time to fix it up somehow someday with a mythical torrent of maintainers? Newshunter12 (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hecato, nice work on all of these good portals. Those who say that the portal is unmaintained for eight years should check its history, which shows a good amount of activity and improvement. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closer, the complaints have been fixed by a few very competent editors. I'm almost surprised this request hasn't been withdrawn, but knowing about confirmation bias and the minds ability to dig in even when faced with contrary evidence that's why things like this are left up to closers. Thanks for going through this page and for comparing it with what has been accomplished since the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 27 August 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.