Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Astrobiology

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Astrobiology

 * – (View MfD)

Six selected articles and five selected bios from September / October 2012. One of the selected articles is a Good Article, two are B class, one is a C or B class, one is C class, and one is start class. One of the selected bios is B class, one is C class, and three are start class. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:Astronomy + Portal:Biology), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Low readership and little maintenance. In Jan-Jun19, this portal had 18 daily pageviews, as compared with 414 for the head article.  Of the 11 articles, all created in 2012, only three have been updated since then.   There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems.  Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, and including a maintenance plan (since lack of maintenance is a problem with most portals), can go to Deletion Review.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for nearly seven years, and is nine articles short of POG's minimum of 20. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by GoneMoot00, who last updated it in Oct 2012, six days after creation, and was soon indefed for sockpuppetry. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has had nearly seven years of no maintainers and it had a very low 18 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Astrobiology had 413 views per day in the same period, which is not enough to sustain a portal). This is a steady long-term decline from the 30 views per day it had from July 1 to Dec. 30 2015.
 * POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but while WikiProject Biology is active, the one mention of the portal on the talk page was an idea notice in Sep. 2012 and it got no response there or at the Village Pump, and is not listed by name on the main page (excluding an automatic MfD notice). It's literaly the exact same story at WikiProject Astronomy. These two WikiProjects never had anything meaningful to do with this portal. 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 seven years of hard evidence shows Astrobiology is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, and oppose re-creation. Low readership + poor maintenance = clear fail of the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 13 September 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.