Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruft portal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 debate was Delete per WP:SNOW. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Cruft portal

Delete allegedly humorous essay in project space that isn't actually remotely funny Mayalld (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment not sure if it should be deleted, but it sure is "provocative". If said user does not like some (unmaintained) cruft, he should put the individual portals up for deletion here. This is just a way of being WP:POINTY. Do we really need this in Wikipedia namespace? If need be, do it on your own Userpage, or a subpage of that, but this is just as much cruft in Wikipedia namespace as some of those portals are cruft in portal namespace. The difference is that this actually annoys me, and the portals are just "dying a slow death" (most cases). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the nominator said it all. Snowolf How can I help? 13:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Agree with TheDJ, if someone wants to propose modifications to policy, or nominate portals for deletion that would probably be ok. Also, writing an essay arguing for more emphasis on encyclopedic subjects would be acceptable. However, this isn't helpful. Addhoc (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete/userfy Simply listing portals that a user believes are 'cruft' (like that is a helpful term...) without any additional content or suggestions is of little use at all, and certainly does not belong in WP space. They may have a greater case if their claimed humour was actually present (rather than biting sarcasm used only to dismiss content). The essay might have a place in userspace, however. LinaMishima (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Not really sure what User:Zenwhat is driving at by terming things like "English grammar" and the Bible "non-notable, unencyclopedic topic[s]", but this essay is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and far outside the bounds of being acceptable. --jonny-mt 16:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • userfy should'nt be in the project namespace. Tim! (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or transwikify to Uncyclopedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem useful or encyclopedic, and also seems to be part of a larger trend of pointy edits. For example, what is the purpose of this question? Also, calling inclusionists "evil," as was done here and here is unacceptable. Also, there is hardly an inclusionist cabal. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete don't userfy or move. Much of it seems to be fairly arbitrary. The "religion" section is borderline offensive; portals about Christian denominations with millions of followers are cruft? And as the nom said, it isn't funny. Mr.Z-man 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm personally offended that many Indian regions, and diverse religions with millions of adherents, are considered 'cruft'. And I'm not even religious or particularly patriotic. Check yourself. Delete this garbage. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete While some Portals are undoubtedly the source of much "cruft", this is completely arbitary and could be offensive. Get rid. Black Kite 19:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If this page is contentious, I am willing to move it to my userspace.

To respond to several comments: The intent of this page was to demonstrate a predominance of poor quality among portals. That seems evident from the existence of the list. I tried to avoid arbitrary entries. Initially, I had added Portal:Playstation, Portal:Nintendo, and Portal:Sega, but removed those from the list when I first created the article. I am also still considering whether Portal:Thinking should be up there too. If you believe any particular entries are still arbitrary, instead of voting for the page to be outright deleted, please try to improve it and remove entries which you believe are arbitrary or let me know why.

For instance, Z-man here [1] accused me of making fun of the Mormon religion. That wasn't what I was doing. It turns out I'd made a typo in copying and pasting my NPOV version of text that was on their portal, rather than the hilariously POV text that was there to begin with. I fixed the typo and added a diff to the original edit, where Portal:Latter-day Saints asserted that it was true Christianity. [2]

Now several points... (Is that okay?)

First, some people seem to misunderstand WP:POINT. It is not against the rules to make edits in an attempt to argue a particular point. WP:POINT applies to disruption, which this article does not do. Articles do not disrupt. People do. Thus, it is illogical to refer to an article as "pointy." There is no such thing: A user, themselves, must be acting disruptively.

Second, some seem to be misunderstanding that every portal there that is listed is automatically "non-encyclopedic," based on jonny-m's remarks above. The lead specifically clarifies this is not true. Some are listed there because they are just ridiculously narrow, technical topics where creating a portal is patently absurd, i.e. Portal:Pipe organ. An article on Pipe organ is fine. A portal on it, however, is silly.

Third, Riana does not appear to have read the page carefully, because she says "many Indian religions," are listed, but there is only one: Ayyavazhi. She may perhaps mean "many Indian geographical locations," which is true.

To defend certain things I listed there:

In addition, some topics listed there aren't necessarily cruft but tend to be used that way. As an example, Portal:Cannabis could contain some decent information. But take a look at the portal now.

I was inspired to write this essay after reading this thread in WP:VPP. That was why I listed Portal:Latter-day Saints. [3] It's possible for there to be a Portal:Latter-day Saints and Portal:Scientology -- I'm not suggesting they be deleted -- simply that they, like all the religious portals, are used for blatant soapboxing.

Anyway, I responded to that user with similar remarks made in this essay. Another person thanked me for my "informative answer." Now that I compile the entire argument into an extensive essay, it somehow ceases to be informative? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is your definition of the word "cruft." Cruft is not something poorly written, non-neutral, nor soapboxing. Cruft is generally considered to be content that has no real encyclopedic value and only people directly associated with the content would care about it. This is why people are offended that you would include major Christian denominations and geographical areas (Riana said "regions") to be cruft. Most of what you listed would not be considered cruft by any stretch of the imagination. Even things relating to pop culture are not, by association, automatic cruft. If someone created a portal for minor bits of a TV show or game, that might be cruft but a portal for the series as a whole - probably not.
  • How is English grammar not an encyclopedic topic? The portal is pretty much non-existent but we have dozens of articles about the topic.
  • Why would the Bible portal just be a list of the books. Certainly there's more facts and studies done about the Bible than a list of books. Most of the Bible predates Christianity, it is not redundant to the Christianity portal.
  • There are hundreds of saints and hundreds of popes covering thousands of years of history. Why should they all have to be merged into one portal.
  • Ayyavazhi isn't notable enough to have a portal? Where are you getting these rules for who is allowed a portal? Ayyavazhi has, at least, hundreds of thousands of followers. Just becasue it is one sect of one of the world's major religions doesn't mean its not notable.
  • A quick skim of Nontheism also seems to suggest its a notable topic.
  • Why can't Pipe organ have a portal? Its one of the oldest and most complex musical instruments. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There's no reason to limit portals to only major, ultra-notable topics. If you have a problem with specific portals, feel free to fix them, you can even ask the corresponding WikiProject for assistance, or nominate them for deletion or merge if you don't think they are salvageable. Mr.Z-man 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Editor appears to be setting himself as the sole judge of portals, a very risky position to place oneself in. Personally, I can and do agree that there are several too many portals. I have even proposed a few for deletion myself. And it would be more like tens of thousands of saints, and about 4000 extant articles, speaking as someone who knows the subject and basically tries to maintain that portal. I think reasonable discussion about perhaps contracting the number of portals would not be a bad idea. However, this page clearly is not such a discussion. Would not object to userification if such were chosen as another option.
Also, at least one of the statements made by the editor who created this page is flatly and clearly wrong. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran churches, as well as the Assyrian Church of the East and a few defunct entities like the Arian Church, also honor or have honored saints. I believe that the creator of this page might be well advised to himself know his subjects a bit better before passing such less-than-well informed judgements. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously pointy, not what a portal is for, per lead: "should promote content and encourage contribution." bibliomaniac15 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No way should something like this be in project space, and also rather provocative; most of these portals are definitely notable enough to exist, and insulting religions by calling them cruft is a rather bad idea for a neutral encyclopedia. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Z-man: Some of your arguments are based on misunderstandings. Others are outright silly, like your defense of Portal:Pipe organ. I'm not going to delve into a huge array of content disputes on this page.

"Editor appears to be setting himself as the sole judge of portals, a very risky position to place oneself in" -- not true. I have invited people to make revisions to the page if they feel any are missing or should be removed and right here, I have discussed why I made certain revisions and am willing to listen to reasonable arguments regarding what should or shouldn't be there. John Carter, since you acknowledge the problem of portals, surely this page has some degree of merit? How would you fix it? In particular, if you were to remove every portal listed you thought was inappropriate, how many portals would be left?

bibliomaniac15: The article is listed as humorous and promoting content and contribution can also involve promoting appropriate deletion.

In general, I find it quite silly that certain people seem more concerned with deleting my "offensive" essays than deleting unencyclopedic content. I made the essay precisely because I know it would be an uphill battle, because of folks like Z-Man who'd argue that Portal:Bus is notable. I did not expect, however, to face this opposition because it is certainly no less encyclopedic than Portal:Pokemon.

For anybody here who finds any particular portal inappropriate, please remove them. If, for instance, the "religious" section is going to be so contentious, would it help if I removed it entirely?☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"insulting religions by calling them cruft" -- I'm NOT calling their religions cruft. I don't know a thing about Ayyavazhi. It could be the secret to all knowledge for all I know. It could be a wonderful religion. I am calling the portals cruft, not the religions. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of your arguments are based on misunderstandings - such as? outright silly, like your defense of Portal:Pipe organ - Yes, the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy is just some silly crap I made up. like Z-Man who'd argue that Portal:Bus is notable - So now you also know what I think? Because I disagree with your opinion of notability (I think the Bible is notable enough for its own portal), I'm now painted as some sort of evil inclusionist? Mr.Z-man 02:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A list of pages that one editor doesn't like? Oh the vulgar masses, we must save them from themselves, lest they drown in their own "cruft". Tedious, patronizing, divisive. Grammar cruft? Now I agree that's amusing. --JayHenry (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Z-Man, when people make claims that are beyond the point of reason, it is impossible to argue. You have, no doubt, come across POV-pushers like that where you simply could not agree with them. In this case, how on earth do you really expect me to believe that Portal:Pipe organ should stay up? What about Portal:Ukelele, Portal:Triangle, Portal:Maraca, and Portal:Bongo? The portals, like categories, were created as alternatives to using sub-pages, the way that encyclopedias sre organized by topic and subject matter. When you support such an absurd portal, because it's so specific, I don't really know what to say, Z-Man. How would you respond if someone was supporting a portal you considered ridiculous? Attempting reasoning seems futile. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean, it's not even like anyone here is going to try and meet me halfway here, and try to compromise on which categories should be deleted: I've offered, above, to totally remove the religious section if that's contentious. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're genuinely interested in compromise, and not just sowing discord and angering people, it would be advantageous for you to lay off the almost comically hyperbolic rhetoric. If you're going to label everyone who disagrees with you as not only inclusionist but evil, you will indeed find that people are not keen to compromise with you. --JayHenry (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2008 (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.