Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Quidditch[edit]

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

An abandoned Portal with two boxes (that last saw serious work in 2014 when they were created) and 10 empty/contentless redlinked componants. The best filled out part is the list of other sports that have nothing to do with the portal topic. Exactly why we need to shut down portals generally - you don't need to look hard to find broken ones like this. Legacypac (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely invalid speedy keep rational with no consideration to the facts of this portal. Numerous editors want to kill all portals - the entire mainspace - so clearing out some of the most abandoned useless ones is perfectly legitimate - just as legitemete as your current participation in a Wikiproject to save all or most portals during the same RFC. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No nothing prevents editors from editing the portals - which includes seeking deletion of them or improving them. Transhumanist revived a dead Wikiproject to save portals, solicited a bunch of editors to help, and then canvased them to come here and vote to keep these portals. Canvassing is out of line. Legacypac (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The accusation of "canvassing" is out of line. Notifying interested parties about deletion discussions on pages, articles, and miscellany is not canvassing. Further, Transhumnist is correct--the page is already nominated for deletion. We should not have two deletion discussions on the same page at the same time. If the larger "portal" discussion is closed without deleting portals, there is no reason we cannont (and should not) come back here and do this again. But we should not do both at the same time. There is no urgency here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Transhumanist has been dedicated to navigation aids for many many years, mostly outlines, but portals are closely connected. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know if I support deleting all portals, but I concur with Kusma's comments. Seraphim System (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postpone until completion of the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals. No prejudice toward re-nomination once that is complete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Disagree that this MFD could not proceed at the same time as the RFC, as long as people limited their attention to just the merits of this MFD. As people cannot seem to do that, however, as a practical matter this and similar portal-related MFDs may not be able to proceed in a sufficiently focused manner. - dcljr (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unfortunately, I am now inclined to agree with User:Dcljr, in that apparently our editors can't focus separately on individual portals and the fate of portals in general. The idea that we have to suspend getting rid of cruddy individual portals is nonsense, but it is party-line nonsense. Therefore:
  • Neutral Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Long-abandoned and incomplete draft of a tiny topic. The keep votes do not address why this particular portal should be kept, regardless of the larger outcome, and are based on process rather than the portal itself. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this discussion and the others like it seem to me to be violating the policy WP:FORUMSHOP, which states "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus." This discussion should be closed per policy and if necessary re-opened at a later date when Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals has concluded. (I have repeated this comment on the other similar discussions)--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a global discussion about a namespace and a particular set of pages. Any comments that do not address the concerns with this page should be discarded. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac, it seems that you are arguing that any point that is in opposition to your point of view should be ignored or discarded. You are free to "disagree" with any opinion of course, but just because you disagree does not mean it should be ignored.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No Paul - I disagree with posting off topic procedural objections. This was even raised at ANi by User:SoWhy who then agreed there was no problem dealing with individual pages while a discussion about the name space proceeded. Please comment on this Portal and stop trying to create a procedural roadblock no admin has been interested in accepting since these MfDs were started. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(pinged) Correct, although I also said that those discussions should not include any arguments (on both sides!) that are about the Portal-namespace in general. On a side note, while I still have no opinion about Portals in general, has someone in this case considered a merge/redirect to Portal:Harry Potter? That seems a logical ATD thing to do from the perspective of an outsider like me. Regards SoWhy 16:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you can disagree. I believe it is relevant. And then... a third party uninvolved closer can come along and make a decision. That's how it works.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
well the portal is about Quidditch (sport) so redirecting to Portal:Harry Potter was not on the radar Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Harry Potter makes no sense here; I don't think Canada's national quidditch team is a nationally-recognized group of Harry Potter fans. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals. –Davey2010Talk 22:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am frankly unconvinced that this ever deserved a portal in the first place. The portal could indeed be improved, but I am not sure how a fictional sport that has been altered to become a minor pastime for some deserves its own portal. A portal should be a topic-taster, and there frankly doesn't seem to be enough on this bite-sized topic to have a taster. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:33, 30 April 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.


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Quidditch