Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kabbalah


 * 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 Keep. The changed text has addressed at least some concerns. What to do about portals that present 'selected' content related to a particular worldview remains a valid concern, though. Tikiwont (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Kabbalah
Non-encyclopedic POV page. When portals are good, they're useful resources for the few people who come across them. When they're bad, they're essentially POV imitations of the main page, full of nothing but praise for their subject. This is the bad kind. rspεεr (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, nothing worth saving here. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question. I'm not seeing the POV. How is this portal any different from Portal:Religion or Portal:Judaism? = Mgm|(talk) 11:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks to be in parallel with similar portals, unless we were to delete them all, I fail to see how POV is the real issue.  And Portals are not "encyclopedia articles" per se, hence meet different criteria as a rule.  Collect (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are other portals that have problems too. They may not be encyclopedia articles, but they should be encyclopedic, and the text on that page sure isn't. Portals should not be a place where it is okay to write everything from one point of view. rspεεr (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In which case, you should be proposing deletion "as a class" instead of one at a time. See also the portals which are almost "travel brochures" -- ought they not be deleted by your standards? But unkess and until you get a "class deletion" I maintain that this particular one does not meet current standards for deletion. Collect (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with MGM and Collect. I don't see a POV problem with this portal. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I've replaced the intro (which used to be incomprehensible to anyone who wasn't already familiar with the subject matter) with a copy of the intro from Kabbalah. I'm unsure whether the portal adds much value on top of what's available at the main page, though. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any POV-pushing, and Zetawoof's new intro is an improvement. Polit i zer talk / contribs 05:53, 1 February 2009 (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.