Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Scientology

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Scientology

(convenience link: subject article is at Scientology)

Delete I of course hesitate before nominating a former featured portal for deletion, but I think this one should be deleted for 3 main reasons: 1) a religion with an est. 200,000 followers globally does not meet the breadth-of-subject-matter requirements of the WP:POG guideline; 2) based on previous MfD discussions, consensus exists that a topic that is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions is not a good topic for a portal because of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV concerns; and 3) The portal is not being maintained; I note WP:WikiProject Scientology is now inactive (though I have talk page notified them anyway). UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't want to argue about breadth-of-subject-area because I think that breadth-of-subject-area is a distraction that leads us astray like a will-o-the-wisp. I also don't want to argue that a consensus has been established that portals that are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions should be deleted, but I will argue again that such portals should be deleted. The portal has an average of 21 daily pageviews. The head article has 7779 average daily pageviews, and the Church of Scientology has 2328 daily pageviews, so the portal provides no service. I don't think that anyone can be knowledgeable about Scientology and neutral about it, so the four choices are to have the portal unmaintained, have the portal maintained by a Scientologist, have the portal maintained by an opponent of Scientology, or delete the portal. The second and third options are nothing but conflict-magnets and sanction-magnets. Delete it, with prejudice, that is, without leaving open the option of a new version of the portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a comment on the merits of keeping or deleting this portal, but by your logic, "I don't think that anyone can be knowledgeable about Scientology and neutral about it" and your implied opposition to the "conflict-magnet" scenario of the portal being managed by someone a person with firm views on the matter, how is it we have an article on the Church of Scientology in the first place? 'Tis a conflict magnet for sure, but that does not mean it should be deleted. Are you saying that the portal is just an unnecessary source of drama? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Indy beetle - The difference is that a portal has a portal maintainer, and an article does not have an article owner. Articles reflect neutral point of view, and dispute resolution is designed to maintain neutral point of view. Articles in contentious areas are POV-magnets but are necessary, and procedures including discretionary sanctions minimize and contain conflict. Portals in contentious areas are POV-magnets and are unnecessary. It is simpler and easier not to have a portal than to have conflict over the portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plentiful articles here already, portal not needed. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Narrow topic, POV magnet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not needed, as there are already sufficient articles on this topic. --- FULBERT (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.