Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Portal pages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep per nomination withdrawl. Xoloz 04:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portals in Wikispace

There are a lot of portal pages left in Wikipedia namespace. Since we now have a portal namespace, they should be moved there. See this link. Radiant_>|< 11:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn. Radiant_>|< 22:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose per the very top of Wikipedia:Wikiportal NOTE: There is now a formal Portal namespace - see WP:PORTAL. If your Wikiportal is designed as a reader-aid, please place it in the portal namespace. If it is an editor-aid, keep it at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Subject. The Portal namespace is for reader orientated portals, and not all portals should be there. There is discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal. Hiding talk 13:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose but not for the above reasons. I feel the distinction between reader-aid and editor-aid has lost all meaning and should be accordingly abandoned. At Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal we are currently discussing ideas for the establishment of new standards and guidelines for Portals. One point I think is generally agreed upon is the moving and restraing to Wikipedia namespace of sub-standard Portals. Thus, those under construction will naturally be found in Wikipedia namespace before being migrated to Portal namespace (provided they meet standards). Besides that, I don't quite understand this nomination. Radiant acknowledges that a Portal namespace has been created for Portals, but wants to delete those not already there? If it was a concern, a proposal should have been made to either Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal or Wikipedia talk:Portal to move them. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Entirely - everything that Cyberjunkie has said. Proposisng something for deletion without discussing it in the relevant talk page is just stupid, and there is absolutely no way that "sub-standard" (we are yet to confirm exactly what defines "sub-standard") portals should be allowed onto the Portals namespace. Current opinion is that a number of portals in the namespace should not be there due to lack of quality/substance/potential - proposing the addition of more Portals, all likely to be sub-standard, is sheer lunacy. Deano 18:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons given above and more. As the WPian probably most responsible for the concept of the creation of the portal namespace (although Tim Starling was, I believe, the one who did the work in the actual mechanical creation, for which I am very grateful), may I offer a few words on its purpose. The Portal namespace is a user namespace - that is, it is for the general public rather than editors, although, unlike the main namespace, advertisements to relevant WikiProjects and encouragements to contribute to Wikipedia, as long as they are discreet, are okay. But it is essentially for user-facing, good quality portals. Nascent portals and substandard portals should remain in the Wikipedia namespace until they are ready to go live. Coincidentally, as the WPians above have noted, there is currently a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal discussing the quality of what is in the Portal namespace, with a view to using it only for portals that meet a certain quality threshold. I think further discussion is better off carried on there, jguk 19:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• I didn't say I wanted them deleted (yes, yes, it's mfD, but several ?fD pages also deal with other kinds of maintenance at times). But thanks for the explanation. I hope that the portals here can get improved or removed on an individual basis. Radiant_>|< 22:31, 31 October 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.