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 . Consensus was deletion as redundant to Portal:Astronomy, and not sufficiently broad in scope. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:X-ray astronomy[edit]

Portal:X-ray astronomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Not sufficiently broad subject area, as is required by the WP:POG guideline; more than adequately covered by Portal:Astronomy. Also, like nearly all non-maintained portals, has the usual smattering of technical bugs, e,g,: the "selected image" has no image. Strong evidence this is a personal project. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. mikeu talk 13:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the positive side the portal creator from back in 2010 has been making intelligent maintenance edits as late as Dec 2018 (maybe more recently on subpages) which is very unusual for portals. The portal is not an automated "self maintaining" driveby creation. It has lots of cool images and between the many objects in outspace to look at and the many observatories and sats humans buit to look at them, there are quite a few articles. So this is not the highest priority portal to trim. Legacypac (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automation has proven to be a disaster full of automatic errors. The cleanup of that mess is causing all portals to be examined closely. Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI - I'm also the maintainer for Portal:Astronomy so I'd be happy to have suggestions to better broaden X-ray astronomy from Astronomy per the portals. Astronomy on Wikiversity is much broader than here per my focus on radiation astronomy which is more astrophysics based than conventional visual or optical astronomy. Comments and criticisms welcome! --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just another FYI - I maintain Portal:Jupiter too. --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of the methods of astronomy, X-ray is second in popularity on Wikipedia only to radio (which does not have its own portal). None of the other methods come close in popularity even visible (optical). The astronomy article is 14x as popular as its portal, but the X-ray astronomy article is only 9x the popularity of its portal. This suggests that perhaps the more focused X-ray astronomy portal has better readership appeal (visual?) than can be put into the article. Of the other proper subset portals X-ray astronomy is last in popularity just behind Space. The most popular subset portal, not counting Spaceflight, is Solar System at 6x the popularity of X-ray astronomy. But, the Solar System article is 254x the popularity of its portal. So for handling the more technical subjects, the other proper subset portals appear to be falling way short of what hopefully the X-ray astronomy portal is succeeding at. --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed at Portal:Astronomy there is a wikiversity link which is piped to a highly deceptive "read more" message.[3] Recent contributions at these two portals appear to be an overzealous attempt to promote a personal project. (too put it mildly) Please see
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#User:Marshallsumter_disrupting_Wikipedia_for_"research"_purposes.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/User:Marshallsumter Incident Article Fix-up Coordination Page
for background on editing of radiation and astronomy related topics. --mikeu talk 23:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POG requires that portals be abiut "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"'. This is about a level-5 vital topic, i.e. ranked somewhere in the in 10,001–50,000 range of most important topics. On other words, we should only have a portal on this if there is consensus to extend the number of potals to between 10,001 and 50,000 ... and no way is there consensus to do that.
The pageview stats are damning. Here's the data for Jan–Mar 2019:
Portal:X-ray astronomy: total 842, i.e. 9.36 views/day
X-ray astronomy: 7,170 total, i.e. 79.7 views/day
So even though the head article lacks a topic-specific navbox, the portal gains only 8.5 times as many views. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 13 April 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.


More