Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Article Incubator

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 delete. BencherliteTalk 17:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Article Incubator
As the Portal:Contents/Portals says, "Portals complement main topics in Wikipedia, and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics. Portals also assist in helping editors to find related projects and things they can do to improve Wikipedia, and provide a unique way to navigate Wikipedia topics."

This is does not meet the criteria for a Portal as outlined above. The portal is supposed to be encouraging editors to edit incubated articles, but portals are for readers not editors. By definition, incubated articles aren't in the main namespace as they aren't good enough for the main namespace, although the potential of articles is recognised and editors are allowed to work on them. Therefore this is a portal that links to no current content, and is worthless clutter. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This portal was created in response to WP:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination) in conjunction with a discussion at WT:Article Incubator. The question asked there was, "What is the procedure for an article created in mainspace while a similar article exists in the incubator?".  Portal:Article Incubator was created on 24 June 2013.  Not so coincidentally, an RfC to mark the incubator as historical was created on 25 June 2013, with the argument, "Expanding it into portals and so forth is not going to change that."  But the discussion about the incubator portal itself at WT:Article Incubator has not raised any concerns.  It was also proposed at WP:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination) without receiving comment.  The portal was deployed to mainspace for the first time yesterday, on an article which is likely to get attention if and when the movie is released, and at which time I also initiated a discussion at WP:VPP.  So this MfD, just as the AfD, are forks of the discussion at the Village Pump.  There is nothing urgent here, the worst that can happen is that a few people from the part of India that speak Malayalam may be attracted to becoming Wikipedia editors.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the history lesson but I don't see how the back history of this is particularly relevant. Can you address the points I made above?  Can you explain why this is a useful portal for readers?  What content will it direct to? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you normally trout editors working to improve the encyclopedia, like you did at WP:VPP? Unscintillating (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As has been explained to you, it's not personal, and it's not a personal attack, and I understand you believe you are doing good, but you really should listen to when everyone else is telling you that you're not and respect consensus on these issues. This is what WP:TROUT says.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Meanwhile can you answer the question as to why you think this fits in with policy and is desirable? Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Inappropriate Portal. Incubated pages are not articles (they are essentially project sub-pages. and we don't have portals for project sub-pages.)
 * On the underlying issue... "What is the procedure for an article created in mainspace while a similar article exists in the incubator?"... I would say the answer is simple... do what we always do when we end up with two articles on the same topic:
 * Merge the two articles.
 * I would merge them into the incubated article... which we would then review to see if it can now stand on its own (in which case we move it to main-space) or if it has to continue at incubation. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the portal? Why do you say that the portal is a portal to project sub-pages?  Are you objecting to having the list of incubated pages appearing on the Portal page?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is currently an active proposal to close the incubator and mark all pages associated with it as inactive/historical. That would effectively close this portal as well, but deleting would also be appropriate. This portal seems to have been created by one user who keeps adding new sub-sections of the incubator in what appears to be a desperate attempt to make the incubator project appear successful when the vast majority of the community wrote it off as a lost cause some time ago. But what is more relevant is the point the nominator makes, this simply is not what portals are for. Portals are for helping navigate related topics, not for trying to advertise failing projects. All the portals and greenhouses and magic rainbows aren't going to revive interest in this well-intentioned but failed experiment. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The proposal to close the incubator is currently headed to defeat, as anyone who would mark what is indisputably an active project "inactive" in the face of broad opposition, and in doing so would be making back door changes to WP:Deletion policy, would not be serving the purpose of building an encyclopedia. The real puzzle is why you are so invested in closing the incubator.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete-The pros and cons of the actual incubator are irrelevant. This is, quite simply, not what portals are for. The introduction claims that "Portals exist for those new to Wikipedia, to introduce them into the editorial pages and process at Wikipedia". That, as far as I can tell, was made up by the editor who wrote it. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment if this is kept, it needs to be reformatted and renamed, to overview all article creation processes on wikipedia -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename I'm wondering if the goals of what the user who created this portal might be more interested instead with turning it into a Wikiproject, under WikiProject Article Incubator. This particular link is currently a redirect, so simply renaming this portal page to become a Wikiproject might just be a better alternative.  I'd have to agree that it may be inappropriate to keep this as a portal, but there could be other alternatives.  The primary issue here is that the creator of this page legitimately thinks there should be other complimentary ways to access content of the incubator... to promote its usage within the Wikipedia editing community.  If you think that is appropriate or not is more to discuss on the Village Pump or on the talk pages related to this effort.  --Robert Horning (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete not an appropriate use of a portal. The page says that "Portals exist for those new to Wikipedia, to introduce them into the editorial pages and process at Wikipedia", which is wrong. Portals exist to showcase article content to readers. They do not relate to our article development process and aren't meant to showcase non-article content (such as pages in the incubator). Possibly we could rename it so that it isn't a portal, but I don't see any particular reason to. Hut 8.5 11:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that as per the WP:VPP discussion in the statement at 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC), the nominator has stated, "I really don't care about the past history here..." Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although well-intentioned, this isn't what the portal space is for. Finding some way to better manage our various sources for draft articles (the incubator, AFC, user pages) is a worthy topic of discussion, but this is the wrong solution. --RL0919 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it your intent by starting discussion forks to undermine the main discussion at WP:VPP? Unscintillating (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2013 (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.