Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Muhammad

 __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: no consensus. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Muhammad


Half built Portal with a bunch of redlinks and empty space. Not improved since 2015. A disgrace for a reader facing page. Legacypac (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Archive, eg by redirection, but do not delete. No history of bad faith, “disgrace”is hyperbole. Just another example showing moribund portals, please don’t nominate them all, just archive them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a disgrace that we have left a half built broken page up so long. Mainspace pages may never be complete but we don't leave them in thos kind of state we stub or Draftify them. Legacypac (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - There is an ongoing overlapping discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals which should close first to avoid skirting consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only is that incorrect rational but it is hypocritical. Perhaps as a member of the task force trying to save portals generally you want to stop work on them until the RFC closes? Nothing in the RFC stops us from examining and deleting some of the worst cases. Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The rationale is perfectly correct: We should work on the larger question first, then the smaller questions if necessary.  It's common sense and common courtesy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If the RfC deletes the space this page gets deleted to. If the RfC closes keep this page still needs to be looked at for deletion. It's common sense. Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's common sense? It's a violation of WP:FORUMSHOP that this proposal is occurring right now. Perhaps the common sense thing to do would be to wait until the proposal to delete all portals including this one has ended before opening a proposal to delete the portal? Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and speedy close - nomination is out of order - the portal has already been nominated for deletion (along with all other portals) in a current deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals, which proposes the following: "Should the system of portals be ended? This would include the deletion of all portal pages and the removal of the portal namespace." Therefore, this portal is up for deletion twice, in two locations on Wikipedia at the same time. There are two deletion notices on the portal page! It is a form of double jeopardy. Please close this MfD, and let the folks at the RfC determine what to do about portals. Thank you.    &mdash; The Transhumanist   08:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Important: This also applies to:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Blu-ray
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Belemnoids
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prehistory of Antarctica
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Quidditch
 * 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.--
 * Comment. (Repeating what I said in a similar MFD, as many may be looking only at the individual subpages.) 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) 20:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The closer can just ignore the Spledy Keep all portals comments as no Admin seems willing to action them. No one has said why we should keep this portal. Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe we will find whoever closes this discussion will make his or her own decision about what to measure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nominator. Strongly disagree that the RFC pre-empts the ability to delete portals that are crud.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Duplicates the same purpose as Portal:Islam. The discussion here should focus on why this one portal should or shouldn't be deleted. This is not the place to discuss or decide the deletion of other portals. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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) 16:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the one posting the same rejected procedural objection. If you have nothing to say about this page please don't post on this MfD. and yes Portal:Islam is essentially the same topic so this is duplicative. Legacypac (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Where was the policy WP:FORUMSHOPPING rejected? Please elaborate and provide a link.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep It is the burden of those that have initiated this deletion discussion to provide their rationale for deleting it, and so far no policy-based reasons to delete have emerged. Stating that this portal is just "crud" and has a lot of red links is simply saying "I don't like it!" which is not a valid argument for deletion based on the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Rational was provided. If this is an acceptable situation left since 2015 ho ahead and defemd why we need to keep it. Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it appears that you have neither read my explanation of why rationale was not provided nor have you read WP:DELREASON. This portal has not been updated in a few years. And??? That's literally not a reason for why we must delete the entire thing. It's not. It simply is not. That's just not how this works. The burden is always on the positive. The burden is on you to find a policy that this portal violates where the response is to delete it, not on us to respond to the nothingness provided by your WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't lecture me on how deletion works. You are free to disagree with my rational but not to tell me there is no rational presented. Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Responding to the lack of valid arguments is a lecture? You have provided zero policies that this content violates. There are fourteen reasons to delete content on Wikipedia, all of which are found on WP:DEL-REASON. You've provided none. I am telling you that there is no rationale presented because there is no rationale presented. Having red links is not a reason to delete anything. It isn't. (and as a minor side note, rational is an adjective. rationale is a verb.) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * First you are wrong wrong wrong. Second this is a Portal and deletion rational is not well developed in this area. Third try WP:DEL1 in mainspace this would have been deleted as a content fork which leads to WP:DEL5. Like many portals, what is there is an unatributed copy which is WP:DEL2. Finally the reasons articulated lead to WP:DEL14 as it is simply unsuitable. This is obviously a notable topic and clearly the nomination is not a IDONTLIKEIT but as a Portal its unsuitable. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's break that down point by point:
 * "Second this is a Portal and deletion rational is not well developed in this area."
 * You do realize WP:DEL-REASON covers content, not just articles, right? That's why it uses the word "content"
 * "Third try WP:DEL1 in mainspace this would have been deleted as a content fork"
 * Let's take a look at WP:DEL1. Based on how you said DEL5, DEL2, and DEL14 I'm assuming you're referring to the bullet points of DEL-REASON meaning the first bullet point is: Criteria for speedy deletion which includes gibberish, test pages, vandalism/hoaxes, already deleted pages, creation by banned users, technical reasons, author-requested deletions, deletions of pages parented to a non-existent page, pages deleted by the Wikimedia Foundation, pages created to threaten or harass, pages constituting unambiguous advertisements or spam, abandoned drafts/articles-for-creation pages. Explain to me again how any of what you said falls under anything in WP:DEL1? If you're going to make a claim, substantiate it. Saying something is different from fully *citing* it and after going point by point for everything in the general section of WP:DEL1 you have nothing there.
 * Now let's look at 5:
 * "deleted as a content fork which leads to WP:DEL5"
 * The unacceptable form of content forking is described in WP:REDUNDANTFORK as failing to "flesh out" and "deviate" the new content. Simply scroll through Portal:Muhammad and then scroll through Portal:Islam and make a comparison of the content. Quite little of Portal:Islam covers Muhammad alone, while Portal:Muhammad has far more content on him. The claim that this is a content fork is out the window.
 * Now for you claim about 2:
 * "what is there is an unatributed copy which is WP:DEL2."
 * You do realize #2 regards "copyrighted" and "non-free" material, right?
 * Now for the claim that it violates #14:
 * Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
 * It defines not suitable under "What Wikipedia is not."
 * "Not a paper encyclopedia, not a dictionary, not a publisher of original thought, not a soapbox or means of promotion, not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, not a blog, not a directory, not a manual, not a crystal ball, not a newspaper, not an indiscriminate collection of information, not censored, not an anarchy, not a democracy, not a bureaucracy, not a laboratory, not a battleground, not compulsory"
 * That has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. I apologize if this sounds harsh, but please actually read the shit you're citing. This is a hasty deletion proposal with no found reason behind it and should be closed speedily per WP:FORUMSHOP. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not Forumshop. With three editors supporting deletion we are obviously not going to speedy keep this page. Cut the wikilawyering and referring to other discussions and stick to the topic at hand. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is FORUMSHOP:
 * "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."
 * When a discussion to delete all portals including this one was already active, you initiated another discussion to delete this portal. Definition of FORUMSHOP.
 * As for "Cut the wikilawyering" you do realize that there's guidelines for deletion, right? If you can't name one damn policy reason to delete the portal then you have nothing. Just the fact that you proposed it first and had to hunt for reasons later (none of which held up under scrutiny as light as just reading what the policy says) speaks for itself. You have nothing. You proposed the deletion discussion but you can't tell me a single reason other than it hasn't been updated since 2015, has red links, and covers a topic also mentioned in Project:Islam. If you can't name a policy to delete it and accurately argue why it violates it, then you have nothing. The fact that a support !vote agreed with the rationale that "it's crud" adds nothing; Wikipedia is not a vote (which might I add is ironically part of What Wikipedia is not which is WP:DEL-REASON point #14 which you inaccurately cited) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A discussion about one of the worst of 1500 pages that scores of editors want to delete enmass is not forum shopping. Even many of the people that want to keep portals suggest trimming the worst ones. Perhaps if the worst are cut out opposition to portals will go down. By hey, just keep arguing procedural points that have already heen rejected by the admins that frequent MfD. You will only strengthen the resolve of those who want to eliminate all portals. Legacypac (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's literally the definition of WP:FORUMSHOP and you've offered nothing that says otherwise. Saying it's "one of the worst" is literally WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You haven't responded to a damn thing I've said and you still actively refuse to name one Wikipedia policy that suggests this content should be deleted. You're creating posts without actually saying anything. I'm arguing "procedural points" that administrators reject? Such as what? When were they rejected? Who rejected them? Why did they reject them? What points? Responses like that are vague and meaningless, even effortless. You still can't name any reasons other than "I don't like it!", you still haven't refuted anything I've said other than stating what amounts to "I disagree" without saying why, you've said nothing throughout this entire discussion. In all honesty, I should non-admin-close this per WP:FORUMSHOP. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as per Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable, and we certainly have enough pages to fill out this page. It's current state could be much improved, yes, but there is cause to believe that it will be. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2018 (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.