The result of the debate was Delete per WP:SNOW. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete allegedly humorous essay in project space that isn't actually remotely funny Mayalld ( talk) 11:59, 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)
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)
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)
The result of the debate was Delete per WP:SNOW. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete allegedly humorous essay in project space that isn't actually remotely funny Mayalld ( talk) 11:59, 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)
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)
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)