Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket (portal)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - It is clear this page isn't getting deleted. Whether this page should be moved is a policy decision that probably shouldn't be decided by a single VfD vote. - SimonP 14:46, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Cricket

Previously Cricket (portal).

Also see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Portal:Cricket, which contains discussion on the same article (but not on the same title).

Like all other wikiportals, this belongs in the Wikipedia namespace under the title Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. Move, then delete the redirect. Neutrality^talk 00:21, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

This vote is now closed. It was about moving the Cricket (portal) page and deleting the redirect that would appear on Cricket (portal). The page has now been moved (to Portal:Cricket) and a speedy deletion request has been made for the redirect on Cricket (portal)., jguk 17:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. Neutrality^talk 00:21, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. VfD is not Wikipedia:Requested moves. JRM · Talk 15:28, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. — Dan | Talk 02:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. CryptoDerk 02:46, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Invalid VFD. Also, the placement was chosen to appease the "no self references" hard-liners, who wouldn't allow a link to the Wikipedia: namespace from cricket (sport). --SPUI (talk) 02:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Uhh...can't we use {{portal}} in cricket, just like we do in every other article with a wikiportal? Neutrality^talk 02:56, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  - No - we can't because that is placing links to Wikipedia-specific pages in article. Those are not allowed on a permanent basis. --mav 03:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - Completely incorrect; Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is a guideline, not hard policy. --SPUI (talk) 07:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket --mav 03:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket — Trilobite (Talk) 04:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's about time we had portals for readers for more widely covered subjects rather than just portals for editors. A positive improvement to Wikipedia, jguk 06:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Note: Wikipediaspace is only suitable for administrative pages. It is not a readerspace. This portal is for readers. It would therefore be entirely inappropriate to move it to Wikipediaspace. It could be moved to Portal:Cricket, for example, if people are concerned about it being in the mainspace. But then disambiguation pages are non-articles in the mainspace already - so why move it at all? jguk 15:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't a Wikiportal. A Wikiportal is a portal for editors and, as it is administrative in function, goes in Wikipediaspace. This a s portal for readers, so they can find their way round pages easier - therefore it is entirely inappropriate for it to go to Wikipediaspace. In response to concerns about this page being called Cricket (portal) it has been moved to Portal:Cricket, which is pretty much as good a solution to this as we are going to get, jguk 16:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - In its current form, more of the "portal" has to do with the hosting functions of the Wikipedia project (and the WikiProject)--the kinds of things that go on the main page--than with providing a topic guide of signposts for the cricket-curious reader. So I think at least of some of this should move (see vote below). Demi ^T/_C 16:22, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Keep. VfD is not for deciding page moves. Neutrality's nomination ("I'd ordinarily put this on requested moves, but items there get much fewer outside input than at VfD...") shows this nomination has nothing to do with deletion. I urge any administrator closing this debate to not necessarily interpret the "move" votes as a consensus to move this article. People may not come to vote as the article will obviously be kept, and this is not the place to discuss page moves. If one wishes to move the page, please bring it up on the talk page of the article and on Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Looks like a useful addition, as Jguk indicated. Jonathunder 15:28, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Move, delete redirect. silsor 15:30, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Move, delete redirect. After some thought, I believe that this is a valid VfD, as it proposes to delete the redirect, thus removing all traces of the portal from the main namespace. Just like an article at Cricket should be about cricket, an article named Cricket (portal) should be about a portal named "cricket", or something like that; it should not be a portal itself. What the article is saying, is: "These are some useful Wikipedia articles about cricket"; it is therefore more about wikipedia itself than about cricket, and it should therefore be in the Wikipedia namespace. Eugene van der Pijll 15:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If I may comment: There is no redirect to delete, as the page has not been moved—it is customary to discuss page moves on the discussion page or on RM first. Also, deletion of redirects is discussed at RfD, not VfD. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Move: Whether Wikipediaspace is appropriate or not is debatable. What is certain is that it does not belong in the article space.--Cyberjunkie 15:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rewrite. To the extent that the "portal" is a guide to the topic of Cricket in Wikipedia, that should stay in with the articles. We have other forms of "guides"--for example, agglomerative articles that incorporate excerpts of content "from the main article" but that are articles on their own because the overview is more effective that way. We have the navigational aid of disambiguation pages. There clearly is some need for establishing a practice for topic guides and other relevant meta-information. Until a better one presents itself, I suggest writing them in the main article space, where this article is. The business about featuring and showcasing articles is, I think, a function purely of the project and not the encyclopedia, and it should be moved to the WikiProject page or some other page in the Wikipedia: namespace. Demi ^T/_C 16:22, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. older≠wiser 21:10, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete from the main namespace; not an article. Whether it's moved first or not isn't a question for VfD. —Korath (Talk) 22:37, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

All above comments relate to the page in its old location, Cricket (portal). Its new location is at Portal:Cricket, as moved by Jguk, after SPUI closed the vote, with the rationale that it was an invalid listing.

Jguk made this comment when moving the page: In response to SPUI's closing of the vote and the comments below, the page has been moved to Portal:Cricket, which hopefully is a happy medium between most of the views expressed below, jguk 16:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My delete still stands. This is still in the main namespace, and should still be deleted from it. Also, since this was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 17:18, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Have a look at the page history. You'll see a nice bit of edit-warring going on about whether the VfD is valid. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket, and delete redirect. Megan1967 04:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As this has again been removed from the vfd page out of process, I'm again taking it to today's page. Stop it. —Korath (Talk) 15:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Is there somewhere better than the delete/move/keep hellhole of Vfd (either listing in this case) to discuss a major innovation like a new type of page in the main namespace. So far I can see precious little debate at all, mostly only "move, because that's where the other portals are" without taking time to figure out whether they should be, and then a load of nonsense about procedure for vfd. Pcb21| Pete 21:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Pete: you have displayed something that few others in this discussion (including myself, to my shame) have: a willingness to look at the issues. I hope something good can come out of this discussion. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is some very modest discussion going on at the other VfD (please don't laugh): Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Portal:Cricket. I completely agree this doesn't belong here and it's painfully obvious no consensus whatsoever is going to come of this. The best thing we can do is wait for this to blow over, temporarily stick the thing somewhere we can all agree on (or have least disagreement on, something) and then use the talk page. Of something. A new page, perhaps. One in the Wikipedia space. But at this point I'd settle for "anywhere but here". JRM · Talk 22:05, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
Move and delete redirect. See my comment at the other VfD. JYolkowski // talk 22:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep Yuckfoo 00:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if my vote wasn't clear. --SPUI (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
move to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket, and delete redirect. clarkk 13:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, non-editing readers should never need to enter the Wikipedia: namespace. --Theo (Talk) 13:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.