Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cricket (portal)

I moved this from the main page because it's not pertinent to the deletion vote.

To those people who have seen a previous version moved to cricket: there was nearly universal disapproval of this, and I think it's fair to say it won't ever happen again. This issue is separate: do portals like these deserve a place in the main namespace at all, similarly to the way disambiguation pages do? Check the talk page for the discussion on the trials and tribulations of this initiative. Personally, what I'm opposed to is including self-references like "this is a WikiPortal" and "join the WikiProject" and all other things that are not helping readers. But when those objections are out of the way, on what grounds do we rule that portals shouldn't be there? Simply stating that WikiPortals belong in the Wikipedia namespace tells only half the story, because this is not your average portal. An attempt is being made at producing an alternate presentation mechanism to a field that's useful to readers and takes advantage of Wikipedia's medium. It can be argued that this attempt should take place on a separate page for the meantime, which is fine; we may also decide mechanisms like these are not appropriate for presentation to readers; or we may decide that they are, but shouldn't be in the main namespace even if tailored to readers rather than contributors. I must say I do not really feel one way or the other, and the present location is only annoying those who consider it namespace pollution, not because readers are in danger of being misleaded. JRM · Talk 00:45, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

As JRM says - this is nothing to do with VfD. Since the portal is a new type of page we can develop whatever rules we want for it. (Of course, the no self-references "rule" isn't a rule anyway as it's only semi-policy.) For a page such as this, a discreet reference to the cricket WikiProject seems entirely appropriate, jguk 15:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)