Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Current events/Video gaming/2006 November 9

 __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 though the policy based discussion not to delete had merit, the absolute lack of content on these pages and lack of any arguments for any usefulness now or in the future were the deciding factor. — xaosflux  Talk 16:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Video gaming/2006 November 9


no content, no inlinks. DexDor (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue or mark historical MFD is the incorrect forum for demotion discussions as it enables the theoretical possibility of deletion.  There is something of a WP:IAR argument here, but shuffling useless pages over to adminspace does not make them go away, and the MFD discussion itself has added to the number of pages to be maintained on Wikipedia.  The deletion discussion will now require an administrator's time to consider the merits, and an actual deletion would require an administrator's time to use the tools.  The end result is not a better encyclopedia, but one in which non-admins must now ask an administrator in case questions arise about these pages.  Perhaps there is a better template, but an historical tag seems to suffice.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Policies/guidelines can be demoted, but these pages aren't policies/guidelines. MFD has been used many times in the past to delete pages in Portal namespace (e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bande dessinée). DexDor (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Demotion is a procedural policy and applies to more than policies and guidelines, and the fact that there is no argument for hiding these pages from non-admins is entirely relevant as to why demotion is the process to use here, not a WP:IAR deletion . As for the WP:OSE argument, I can find examples of people being uncivil without being blocked, but that doesn't mean that the behavior is policy based or acceptable.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If MFD is "the incorrect forum" to delete portal pages then please provide a link to the policy/guideline where that is stated. For info: Another MFD for similar pages is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Current events/Video gaming/2006 December 9. Why would you want to mark a page that has never had any content as historical? DexDor (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, so how about using Template:Db-nocontent? Do you want me to do it?  As for the link, I've provided it...it says that MfD is to be discouraged for demotion purposes.  I have no preference for the historical tag, but it solves what seems to be your concern, and is mentioned as a part of the Demotion process.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you mean your link to Policies and guidelines then that page does not mention portal pages (the page is about policies and guidelines). Deletion by A3 would be ok by me - I didn't use that tag as it refers to articles and these are portal pages, not articles. DexDor (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A one-word answer of "yes" would have ended this MfD, although I agree this would have been a WP:IAR deletion. So we are back to following process.  What is your problem with the historical template?  You could have posted such a template in the same amount of time that it took you to post the MfD template.  Portal:Current events/Video gaming/2006 November 9 has a one-edit edit history, i.e., it has a history. Is WP:Portal guidelines a guideline in the meaning of WP:Policies and guidelines?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am a little puzzled. Is the argument that portal pages once made may never be deleted?  DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the possible argumentum ad absurdum, I defer to the demotion policy. More generally, I sense that there is a mistaken emphasis on object impermanence rather than material that the public at large should not see, such as a copyright violation.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 6 November 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.