Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:RuneScape


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was no consensus. In cases where a substantial number of articles exists, and where a substantial number of established editors attend to and value those articles, it is quite difficult to consider a portal "too narrow." Policy offers no strict standard for borderline cases; "narrowness" is usually exhibited in practice, either by inattentiveness to the portal, or by a very small number of articles being subsumed under it. Here, it isn't obvious that either of these conditions is present. The community's voice is also not united in the discussion below. Xoloz 15:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Portal:RuneScape
This is a portal about a single video game that is not any more notable than countless other video games. It's an inappropriately detailed portal with content that can be quite well covered in the Portal:Video games, and a special portal just for RuneScape is not necessary. (See also, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:RuneScape (1st nomination)) Andre (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Andre (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per previous Keep MfD - nomination argument is effectively the same, no policy violations cited. Being specific is not a reason for deletion. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there really aren't any portal-related policies or guidelines for me to cite, nor do I know of any precedents. The difference between last time and this time is that last time this portal was relatively new, and as we can see now it has scarcely changed or grown. Andre (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per CaptainVindaloo. I don't have experience with portal deletion discussions (how often do we have them?), but if the portal is sufficiently populated to clear CSD P1, I'm willing to let it stay.  Portals are sometimes compared to WikiProjects, and WikiProject RuneScape exists, so I think the narrow scope is tolerable. Shalom Hello 01:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The same nominator, User:Andrevan, has also filed an AfD at Articles for deletion/RuneScape misc covering a number of articles in Category:RuneScape. I haven't decided how to vote in either place, but the case for article deletion appears stronger than that for portal deletion. Reading the AfD comments does give more insight into the overall issue. EdJohnston 02:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that they were related in any way except similar topics. That sentence isn't very clear, and what I was trying to say isn't really relevant, so nevermind. Andre (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, a small game doesn't deserve to have a portal though it doesn't violate any rule. Merge it to Portal:Video games.  A  W  03:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I simply can't see the point. Some of it seems to be an excuse to retain indiscriminate information (Did You Know, Quotes and RuneScape News sections), "Things you can do" is stuff that we should be applying to all video games anyway. The remaining bits of information belongs on the relevant articles and categories. Perhaps a Task Force would be more appropriate? Marasmusine 10:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a task force already. Greeves (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Based on the outcome of the other Runescape AFD's, the portal itself may or may not fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. SmileToday☺(talk to me, My edits) 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as overly specific. WP:NOT a game guide.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There isn't enough content in Wikipedia on Runescape to make a portal reasonable.  Even if there was enough content, that would mean it should be pared down, not turned into a portal. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 11:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep. If the rest of the series is kept (which I support), this should be kept too because the series could use the extra coordination.  If the rest of the series is deleted, this should be deleted as well because it would become useless. Dtm142 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Portals are not used for coordination between editors - WikiProjects (like WP:RUNESCAPE) are. Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - why spend time on trying to delete this portal? It's useful (and it's no article, so usefulness is a valid argument for a keep vote), and there is no reason to delete it.  Sala Skan  15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - If this is useful to some people, then it is definitely useful for people who are interested on RuneScape articles but don't have a lot of time to play the game itself. There is a specific portal page for a RuneScape task force, but it is more meant just to improve the article. The regular portal could refresh people by using the portal as an updating information source, and not just people in the task force. ~Iceshark7 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, portals are not meant to be this specific. A broad Portal:Video games is more useful all-round.--cj | talk 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per CaptainVindaloo - • The Giant Puffin •  14:04, 10 July 2007 (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.