Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Quidditch (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: 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 discussion was: keep . Discussions about upmerging to the Harry Potter portal can be done on the talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Quidditch

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

Narrow topic, unmaintained, contains a bunch of redlinked sections. Adds nothing to Quidditch Legacypac (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to
    Quidditch (sport). Not a suitable portal, but a distraction from improving the article. Urge the nominator to boldly do these redirects and come to MfD only when reverted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to Portal:Harry Potter, obviously. I'm not sure a cross-namespace redirect is a good idea here. Reyk YO! 10:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That target averages 44 views per day, itself an unworthy portal. CNRs are only a problem when taking readers out of mainspace, not a problem portals to mainspace. A redirect to Portal:Harry Potter would be ok, but no one is going to merge anything. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirecting portals is not a very good idea unfortinately. We need the weight of a discussion. Further this portal is about a very minor sport, not Harry Potter. Legacypac (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't Quidditch a fictional sport from the Harry Potter series? That's true even if some people have started playing a ground-bound variant of it in real life. Reyk YO! 12:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It really is real, taken from Harry Potter of course, and only almost serious. No Legacypac, we do not need a separate discussion on every little forgotten thing. For portals, most of them, the issues are exactly the same. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As there is absolutely no policy about Portal notability, we need to start building some precident. Please join in as I know you think portals should be wound up. Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the closing statement at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't spam MfD with ads for your Wikiproject
User:Transhumanist. This is not the first time you have been warned about spamming various places to promote something hundreds of good faith editors don't want. Legacypac (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Like your previous warnings, this warning from you on violating your personal definition of spam, that has no relation to Wikipedia's guidelines on the subject, has no basis. Besides, it's not my WikiProject. It's the WikiProject Portals, a team of 74 editors dedicated to improving portals, who are doing a hell of a lot more work than me, and a fine job too. I am proud of them, and I'm proud to be part of the team.    — The Transhumanist   18:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac please provide a link to your accusation of spam and describe: is this offline spam, or within Wikipedia? I've looked through his contribution logs and only see notification at the project of the MFD which is clearly not "SPAM" and is common, accepted practice. Where is this SPAM, please?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MfD and 1500 portal pages are not appropriate places to place advertising about your wikiproject. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac please provide a link to your accusation of spam and describe. There are only 7 pages that link to this discussion, all are reasonable links. Not 1,500 as you state.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still an unsuitably narrow portal topic. We should not have to take a portal to MfD twice to force someone to change it from an abandoned mess. Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There no case for deletion, not now, not next time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a caee exists. It's not a suitable topic. Its pretty much a joke "sport" Legacypac (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a neutral point of view. Besides, the people playing that sport look like they are having fun. Why wouldn't people want to read about that? We don't delete things just because you don't like the subject.    — The Transhumanist   18:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be supported by enthusiastic editors and looks broad enough to reach people. Not my cup of tea, but that's no reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2018 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Quidditch_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1074079066"