Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:StarCraft (1st nomination)

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 Keep — xaosflux ^Talk 00:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:StarCraft

Fancruft. Inappropriately specific portal about a single game (not even a series with multiple titles). Andre (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fancruft portal which fairly sparse. Xoloz 15:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a fairly decent portal. Do you realize how many articles related to StarCraft they have, incidentally? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per WP:SOFTWARE criteria #6:

  #1 listed PC game

  #2 behind tetris

  #4 behind Pirates!, CivII, Tetris ST47 22:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not the article I want to delete, it's the portal. Andre (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a large enough subject to warrant a portal. Fancruft containing the contributions of ... 1 user. ed g2s • talk 01:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Category:StarCraft looks large enough to support a Portal. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 @ 02:25 UTC
• Couldn't we merge this up into a portal on realtime strategy games? BD2412 T 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I may have fallen into the Starcraft craze a while ago, but personally, even though Starcraft is a game with a giant fanbase and tremendous support and love across the internet, some of this might not be best suited for a portal. Perhaps, some of the Starcraft fad could be spread into the actual article rather than as a portal. In fact, the portal is pretty much the article itself. If the portal had much more information, or the portal information was in the article, all would be solved. That, or merge the category with the portal, just SOMETHING to make that portal better. Logical2u 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how having a portal on such a narrow subject area is valuable. The articles and categories are sufficient. jacoplane 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - well if the starcraft material merits its own articles (and I'm not saying that they do), then it is appropriate to have a portal linking them together.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:SOFTWARE, and the fact that its a massively notable game. It is more than fancruft, and is no way wholly inappropriate to Wikipedia. --Knucmo2 18:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The PORTAL, not the ARTICLE. Andre (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No need to shout, I was referring to the portal. It's a portal of a massive notable game, and is not "wholly inappropriate" to Wikipedia. Its more than mere Fancruft. --Knucmo2 20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I wasn't shouting, that was just emphasis. Mainly the issue was that we don't have notability requirements for portals, so WP:SOFTWARE doesn't apply in this case. Andre (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Portals are useful organizational devices and frequently provide further insight into the topics they organize. They also promote more frequent editors with an interest in a particular area of knowledge. Doesn't fail WP:SOFTWARE, as other editors have pointed out, and doesn't fail any other policies that I can think of (notability, verifiability, sourcing), so by default it should remain. Now, I would not be averse to deleting this portal if there's a more general Portal: Blizzard Games that the contents of this portal can be merged into, but until/unless there is an active, established portal of that type, a deletion would only harm attempts to improve the quality of these articles. (Disclaimer: I am not involved in this portal at all) Captainktainer 03:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  WP:SOFTWARE doesn't apply to portals. Andre (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  It may not specifically mention portals, but it provides decent guidelines for determining the notability and importance of a software-related subject. Wikipedia:Portals is also a good source of guidelines for portals. By WP:Portals it's sort of skirting a grey area; the number of articles is roughly twice the guideline for the number of articles recommended (see endnote #1 in WP:Portals), it's about a fairly wide topic (both the fiction and the impact of Starcraft, which is on roughly the same scale as Portal:LOST), and it provides a useful entry point to Wikipedia content. However, the number of contributors is admittedly lacking, although if one editor on his own can do the work of twenty, it isn't such a big deal. On that fact alone I'm changing my vote from Strong Keep to Keep; I can see some of the rightness of the delete position now, although I'm still very much in favor of keeping it around.Captainktainer 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Very useful portal, I didn't know there were this many StarCraft articles. 24.177.135.117 12:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. People like it, it's an extensive base of information on a topic about which people care. Why not keep it? Sure, you may not like the game, but if we can have as many Harry Potter character pages as we do, we can have this. By the way, no disrespect to Harry Potter character pages. DougOfDoom ^talk 01:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I like StarCraft quite a lot. It even appears on my Top 35 games. I just don't think it's appropriate to have such a specific, unprofessional article. Andre (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2006 (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.