- 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 No consensus to delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Portal:Smooth jazz
over four years in existence, and the only thing it does is link to the article on smooth jazz, which is itself highly problematic. any content which could possibly fit here can go in the Portal:Jazz, which is now an active portal. besides, this is more of a marketing name, not a real subgenre of music, sort of like having a Portal:Quiet Storm. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Category:Smooth jazz clearly a topic that has hundreds of articles..the reason we have portals. Not harming anyone.....in fact its a great jumping off point for the topic at hand. As for the personal POV that its not a real topic...just need to do a
google search to see the truth. Deletion of peoples valid contributions is one of the main reason we are losing so many editors. --
Moxy (
talk) 02:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- sorry for the POV, that was uncalled for. its a real topic no matter how maligned it is in some purist circles. however, this portal IS causing harm. a reader, or editor, finding the portal link, will think its something useful. when they get there and realize its not doing anything, they will develop a very negative opinion of WP portals, and may not bother checking others out. i know when i come upon a bad portal, it makes me feel sorry for WP, and i "work" here. I feel very strongly that while wikiprojects can be at any stage of activity, a portal MUST do something useful immediately upon creation, just like an article must show notability from the get go, even if incomplete. If someone comes along right now and revamps this portal, adds content (remember, its FA, GA, and B class articles, not a directory of all articles), i would have no problem withdrawing my nom. but thats not going to happen. the jazz portal itself was almost completely stale. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate additional feedback. —
xaosflux
Talk 03:10, 25 September 2014 (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.
- 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 No consensus to delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Portal:Smooth jazz
over four years in existence, and the only thing it does is link to the article on smooth jazz, which is itself highly problematic. any content which could possibly fit here can go in the Portal:Jazz, which is now an active portal. besides, this is more of a marketing name, not a real subgenre of music, sort of like having a Portal:Quiet Storm. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Category:Smooth jazz clearly a topic that has hundreds of articles..the reason we have portals. Not harming anyone.....in fact its a great jumping off point for the topic at hand. As for the personal POV that its not a real topic...just need to do a
google search to see the truth. Deletion of peoples valid contributions is one of the main reason we are losing so many editors. --
Moxy (
talk) 02:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- sorry for the POV, that was uncalled for. its a real topic no matter how maligned it is in some purist circles. however, this portal IS causing harm. a reader, or editor, finding the portal link, will think its something useful. when they get there and realize its not doing anything, they will develop a very negative opinion of WP portals, and may not bother checking others out. i know when i come upon a bad portal, it makes me feel sorry for WP, and i "work" here. I feel very strongly that while wikiprojects can be at any stage of activity, a portal MUST do something useful immediately upon creation, just like an article must show notability from the get go, even if incomplete. If someone comes along right now and revamps this portal, adds content (remember, its FA, GA, and B class articles, not a directory of all articles), i would have no problem withdrawing my nom. but thats not going to happen. the jazz portal itself was almost completely stale. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate additional feedback. —
xaosflux
Talk 03:10, 25 September 2014 (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.